Re: [PATCH PREVIEW RFC 1/6] base: bootcache: initial commit

On 9/30/25 00:38, Bird, Tim wrote:
>
>
> This seems redundant given we're in a #else /* !CONFIG_BOOTCACHE */ conditional section
> How could IS_ENABLED() return true?  (did I miss an #endif somewhere?)
>
>> +		return bootcache_get(name, out_val, &len);
>> +	else
>> +		return -ENOENT;
> Come to think of it, why are these specialized calls in a !CONFIG_BOOTCACHE conditional section?
> If the base call 'bootcache_get' is already conditional, and turns into a 'return -ENOENT', then
> this call (bootcache_get_u16()), will turn into 'return -ENOENT' also, which will cause the whole
> call chain to evaporate at the callsite (due to the conditional there on '==0')
>
> I'm not sure any of these specialized calls need to be in conditional sections - just the base
> ones.
>
Hi Tim,

Thanks for your feedback, good spot on that conditional, I will get it 
fixed in the last patch!