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 --- 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; }
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; }
在 2021/4/23 上午5:56, Daniel Borkmann 写道:
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; }
Hi,
Thanks for your reply.
TLDR: 1. Now all this kind of warning in tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/ were reported and discussed except this one. 2. We might not do scanning and check reports on tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/ in the future, because some contributors want the progs to stay as close as possible to the way they were written. (https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-kselftest/patch/1618307549-78149-...)
Details:
We have checked the recent linux master (commit: 16fc44d6387e260f4932e9248b985837324705d8), and the related reports and their current status is shown as follows:
./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c:67:12-13: WARNING comparing pointer to 0 (not appear in the bpf-next branch)
./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c:76:15-16: WARNING comparing pointer to 0 (the above patch try to eliminate it)
./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fexit_test.c:68:12-13: WARNING comparing pointer to 0 ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fexit_test.c:77:15-16: WARNING comparing pointer to 0 (eliminated in https://kernel.source.codeaurora.cn/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next...)
./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:364:18-22: WARNING comparing pointer to 0 ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:364:18-22: WARNING comparing pointer to 0, suggest !E ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:537:23-27: WARNING comparing pointer to 0 ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:537:23-27: WARNING comparing pointer to 0, suggest !E ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:544:21-25: WARNING comparing pointer to 0 ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:544:21-25: WARNING comparing pointer to 0, suggest !E ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:692:29-33: WARNING comparing pointer to 0 ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:770:13-17: WARNING comparing pointer to 0 (Discussed in https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-kselftest/patch/1618307549-78149-...)
./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_global_func10.c:17:12-13: WARNING comparing pointer to 0 (cleanup in https://kernel.source.codeaurora.cn/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next...)
Thanks.
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 4:57 AM Abaci Robot abaci@linux.alibaba.com wrote:
在 2021/4/23 上午5:56, Daniel Borkmann 写道:
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; }
Hi,
Thanks for your reply.
TLDR:
- Now all this kind of warning in tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/
were reported and discussed except this one. 2. We might not do scanning and check reports on tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/ in the future,
please stop such scans in selftests/bpf. I don't see any value in such patches.
linux-kselftest-mirror@lists.linaro.org