Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 23 Apr 2020 10:10:22 +0800
From:   Wang YanQing <udknight@gmail.com>
To:     "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc:     Jason Yan <yanaijie@huawei.com>, davem@davemloft.net,
        kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
        mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, x86@kernel.org, ast@kernel.org,
        daniel@iogearbox.net, kafai@fb.com, songliubraving@fb.com,
        yhs@fb.com, andriin@fb.com, john.fastabend@gmail.com,
        kpsingh@chromium.org, lukenels@cs.washington.edu,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf, x32: remove unneeded conversion to bool
Message-ID: <20200423021021.GA16982@udknight>
Mail-Followup-To: Wang YanQing <udknight@gmail.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Jason Yan <yanaijie@huawei.com>,
        davem@davemloft.net, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, x86@kernel.org,
        ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, kafai@fb.com,
        songliubraving@fb.com, yhs@fb.com, andriin@fb.com,
        john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@chromium.org,
        lukenels@cs.washington.edu, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20200420123727.3616-1-yanaijie@huawei.com>
 <dff9a49b-0d00-54b0-0375-cc908289e65a@zytor.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <dff9a49b-0d00-54b0-0375-cc908289e65a@zytor.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:43:58AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 2020-04-20 05:37, Jason Yan wrote:
> > The '==' expression itself is bool, no need to convert it to bool again.
> > This fixes the following coccicheck warning:
> > 
> > arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c:1478:50-55: WARNING: conversion to bool
> > not needed here
> > arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c:1479:50-55: WARNING: conversion to bool
> > not needed here
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Yan <yanaijie@huawei.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> 
> x32 is not i386.
> 
> 	-hpa
Hi! H. Peter Anvin and all

I use the name "x86_32" to describe it in original commit 03f5781be2c7
("bpf, x86_32: add eBPF JIT compiler for ia32"), but almost all following
committers and contributors use the world "x32", I think it is short format
for x{86_}32.

Yes, I agree, "x32" isn't the right name here, I think "x32" is well known
as a ABI, so maybe we should use "x86_32" or ia32 in future communication.

Which one is the best name here? x86_32 or ia32 or anything other?

Thanks!