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@linux.alibaba.com Signed-off-by: Jiapeng Chong jiapeng.chong@linux.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; }