netdev - Re: [PATCH] bpf, x32: remove unneeded conversion to bool

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <01cbaffb-dfb3-06e7-d01f-ae583ee0c012@zytor.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Apr 2020 02:40:01 -0700
From:   "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:     Wang YanQing <udknight@...il.com>, Jason Yan <yanaijie@...wei.com>,
        davem@...emloft.net, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, x86@...nel.org,
        ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, kafai@...com,
        songliubraving@...com, yhs@...com, andriin@...com,
        john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...omium.org,
        lukenels@...washington.edu, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf, x32: remove unneeded conversion to bool

On 2020-04-22 19:10, Wang YanQing wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:43:58AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 2020-04-20 05:37, Jason Yan wrote:
>>> The '==' expression itself is bool, no need to convert it to bool again.
>>> This fixes the following coccicheck warning:
>>>
>>> arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c:1478:50-55: WARNING: conversion to bool
>>> not needed here
>>> arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c:1479:50-55: WARNING: conversion to bool
>>> not needed here
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Yan <yanaijie@...wei.com>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c | 4 ++--
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>> x32 is not i386.
>>
>> 	-hpa
> Hi! H. Peter Anvin and all
> 
> I use the name "x86_32" to describe it in original commit 03f5781be2c7
> ("bpf, x86_32: add eBPF JIT compiler for ia32"), but almost all following
> committers and contributors use the world "x32", I think it is short format
> for x{86_}32.
> 
> Yes, I agree, "x32" isn't the right name here, I think "x32" is well known
> as a ABI, so maybe we should use "x86_32" or ia32 in future communication.
> 
> Which one is the best name here? x86_32 or ia32 or anything other?
> 

x86-32 or i386.

	-hpa