-----Original Message----- From: Alexei Starovoitov alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 9:10 AM Tim.Bird@sony.com wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Alexei Starovoitov alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 2:52 AM Yang Li yang.lee@linux.alibaba.com wrote:
Fix the following coccicheck warnings: ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:189:7-11: WARNING comparing pointer to 0, suggest !E ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:361:7-11: WARNING comparing pointer to 0, suggest !E ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:386:14-18: WARNING comparing pointer to 0, suggest !E ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:402:14-18: WARNING comparing pointer to 0, suggest !E ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:433:7-11: WARNING comparing pointer to 0, suggest !E ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:534:14-18: WARNING comparing pointer to 0, suggest !E ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:625:7-11: WARNING comparing pointer to 0, suggest !E ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:767:7-11: WARNING comparing pointer to 0, suggest !E
Reported-by: Abaci Robot abaci@linux.alibaba.com Signed-off-by: Yang Li yang.lee@linux.alibaba.com
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h | 22 +++++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h index 4896fdf8..a33066c 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h @@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ static INLINE void populate_ancestors(struct task_struct* task, #endif for (num_ancestors = 0; num_ancestors < MAX_ANCESTORS; num_ancestors++) { parent = BPF_CORE_READ(parent, real_parent);
if (parent == NULL)
if (!parent)Sorry, but I'd like the progs to stay as close as possible to the way they were written.
Why?
They might not adhere to kernel coding style in some cases. The code could be grossly inefficient and even buggy.
There would have to be a really good reason to accept grossly inefficient and even buggy code into the kernel.
Can you please explain what that reason is?
It's not the kernel. It's a test of bpf program.
That doesn't answer the question of why you don't want any changes.
Why would we not use kernel coding style guidelines and quality thresholds for testing code? This *is* going into the kernel source tree, where it will be maintained and used by other developers. -- Tim