[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7ecb85e6-410b-65bb-a042-74045ee17c3f@iogearbox.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 23:56:05 +0200
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Jiapeng Chong <jiapeng.chong@...ux.alibaba.com>, shuah@...nel.org
Cc: ast@...nel.org, andrii@...nel.org, kafai@...com,
songliubraving@...com, yhs@...com, john.fastabend@...il.com,
kpsingh@...nel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/bpf: fix warning comparing pointer to 0
On 4/22/21 12:00 PM, Jiapeng Chong wrote:
> Fix the following coccicheck warning:
>
> ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c:76:15-16: WARNING
> comparing pointer to 0.
>
> Reported-by: Abaci Robot <abaci@...ux.alibaba.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jiapeng Chong <jiapeng.chong@...ux.alibaba.com>
How many more of those 'comparing pointer to 0' patches do you have?
Right now we already merged the following with similar trivial pattern:
- ebda107e5f222a086c83ddf6d1ab1da97dd15810
- a9c80b03e586fd3819089fbd33c38fb65ad5e00c
- 04ea63e34a2ee85cfd38578b3fc97b2d4c9dd573
Given they don't really 'fix' anything, I would like to reduce such
patch cleanup churn on the bpf tree. Please _consolidate_ all other
such occurrences into a _single_ patch for BPF selftests, and resubmit.
Thanks!
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c
> index 52a550d..d4247d6 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c
> @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ int BPF_PROG(test7, struct bpf_fentry_test_t *arg)
> SEC("fentry/bpf_fentry_test8")
> int BPF_PROG(test8, struct bpf_fentry_test_t *arg)
> {
> - if (arg->a == 0)
> + if (!arg->a)
> test8_result = 1;
> return 0;
> }
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists