On 31/07/23 19:03, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 11:54:53AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 15:07:52 +0300 Dan Carpenter dan.carpenter@linaro.org wrote:
On Sat, Jul 29, 2023 at 03:55:47PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
@@ -1761,6 +1761,11 @@ static int parse_pred(const char *str, void *data, FILTER_PRED_FN_CPUMASK; } else if (field->filter_type == FILTER_CPU) { pred->fn_num = FILTER_PRED_FN_CPU_CPUMASK;
} else if (single) {pred->op = pred->op == OP_BAND ? OP_EQ : pred->op;Nit, the above can be written as:
pred->op = pret->op != OP_BAND ? : OP_EQ;Heh. Those are not equivalent. The right way to write this is:
You mean because of my typo?
No, I hadn't seen the s/pred/pret/ typo. Your code does:
if (pred->op != OP_BAND) pred->op = true; else pred->op OP_EQ;Realy we should probably trigger a static checker warning any time someone does a compare operations as part of a "x = comparison ?: bar; Years ago, someone asked me to do that with regards to error codes like:
return ret < 0 ?: -EINVAL;but I don't remember the results.
FWIW this is caught by GCC:
error: the omitted middle operand in ?: will always be ‘true’, suggest explicit middle operand [-Werror=parentheses] pred->op = pred->op != OP_BAND ? : OP_EQ;
regards, dan carpenter