Re: [PATCH] x86/sgx: Use goto to remove redundant if check in sgx_encl_init

Jarkko Sakkinen <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.linux-sgx,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Sat, Dec 13, 2025 at 09:11:23PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2025 at 10:05:00PM +0100, Thorsten Blum wrote:
> > On 11. Dec 2025, at 21:15, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 10:03:56PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 04:48:08PM +0100, Thorsten Blum wrote:
> > >>> On 10. Dec 2025, at 16:32, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > >>>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 02:00:35PM +0100, Thorsten Blum wrote:
> > >>>>> Immediately break out of both loops when 'ret != SGX_UNMASKED_EVENT'
> > >>>>> instead of checking for the same condition again in the outer loop.
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Blum <[email protected]>
> > >>>>> ---
> > >>>>> [...]
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> I don't think moving code around is very useful.
> > >>> 
> > >>> The patch doesn't actually move any code around, but it removes up to 50
> > >>> (SGX_EINIT_SLEEP_COUNT) duplicate and therefore unnecessary if checks in
> > >>> the outer for loop.
> > >> 
> > >> Temporary change for generating disassembly:
> > >> [...]
> > > 
> > > It pretty much does what I said i.e., shuffles a new location for a code block.
> > 
> > GCC emits a much larger diff; however, discussing the patch based solely
> > on the disassembled code probably isn't very meaningful.
> 
> It does close the "does nothing useful" claim. It really does nothing 
> useful.

So it's a debate whether saving a single check with more convoluted 
branching is a better or worse idea. I don't know. Thus, I cannot 
accept this patch.


BR, Jarkko
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.