netdev - Re: [PATCH] libbpf: Remove unnecessary 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAEf4BzYLRAZrCTDpECUDBN-JeAfHnPWBOHgpk5xSu9OpDd1q7A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 6 Nov 2020 14:19:03 -0800
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     xiakaixu1987@...il.com, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Martin Lau <kafai@...com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kaixu Xia <kaixuxia@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libbpf: Remove unnecessary conversion to bool

On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 1:50 PM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2020-11-06 at 13:32 -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 11:12 PM <xiakaixu1987@...il.com> wrote:
> > > Fix following warning from coccinelle:
> > > ./tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c:1478:43-48: WARNING: conversion to bool not needed here
> []
> > > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> []
> > > @@ -1475,7 +1475,7 @@ static int set_kcfg_value_tri(struct extern_desc *ext, void *ext_val,
> > >                                 ext->name, value);
> > >                         return -EINVAL;
> > >                 }
> > > -               *(bool *)ext_val = value == 'y' ? true : false;
> > > +               *(bool *)ext_val = value == 'y';
> >
> > I actually did this intentionally. x = y == z; pattern looked too
> > obscure to my taste, tbh.
>
> It's certainly a question of taste and obviously there is nothing
> wrong with yours.
>
> Maybe adding parentheses makes the below look less obscure to you?
>
>         x = (y == z);

Yeah, I think this would be explicit enough. But let's keep the *(bool
*) cast and keep switch code shorter and without extra {} block.

>
> My taste would run to something like:
> ---
>  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>

[...]