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 <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jiapeng Chong <[email protected]>
---
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;
}
--
1.8.3.1
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 <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Jiapeng Chong <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Jiapeng Chong <[email protected]>
>
> 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/[email protected]/)
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.git/commit/?id=ebda107e5f222a086c83ddf6d1ab1da97dd15810)
./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/[email protected]/)
./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.git/commit/?id=04ea63e34a2ee85cfd38578b3fc97b2d4c9dd573)
Thanks.
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 4:57 AM Abaci Robot <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jiapeng Chong <[email protected]>
> >
> > 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,
please stop such scans in selftests/bpf.
I don't see any value in such patches.