On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 5:59 AM Jack Brennen <jbrennen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> +Elf_Sym *symsearch_find_nearest(struct elf_info *elf, Elf_Addr addr,
> + unsigned int secndx, bool allow_negative,
> + Elf_Addr min_distance)
> +{
> + size_t hi = elf->symsearch->table_size;
> + size_t lo = 0;
> + struct syminfo *table = elf->symsearch->table;
> + struct syminfo target;
> +
> + target.addr = addr;
> + target.section_index = secndx;
> + target.symbol_index = ~0; /* compares greater than any actual index */
> + while (hi > lo) {
> + size_t mid = lo + (hi-lo)/2; /* Avoids potential overflow */
> +
> + if (syminfo_compare(&table[mid], &target) > 0)
> + hi = mid;
> + else
> + lo = mid+1;
My preference is "low = mid + 1" over "low = mid+1"
Documentation/process/coding-style.rst suggests spaces
around binary operators.
"
Use one space around (on each side of) most binary and ternary operators,
such as any of these::
= + - < > * / % | & ^ <= >= == != ? :
"
I can see the corresponding line in the checkpatch tool:
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v6.5/scripts/checkpatch.pl#L5330
I wonder why the checkpatch did not detect it.
Maybe, Joe Perches may know the reason.
My previous question about the type inconsistency
was not addressed.
syminfo::symbol_index is unsigned int
symsearch::table_size is size_t
If we encountered a situation where size_t is
really needed for the table_size
(that is, the number of entries does not fit in 32-bit),
syminfo::symbol_index would wrap around.
So, there is no point to use size_t for one,
and (unsigned int) for the other.
In my opinion, (unsigned int) would be enough to count
numbers or index here.
size_t might be 32-bit or 64-bit depending
on the build host architecture.
That is not related to the target architecture
of ELF being processed.
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
