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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf, x32: remove unneeded conversion to bool
To:     Wang YanQing <udknight@gmail.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>
 <20200423021021.GA16982@udknight>
From:   "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Message-ID: <01cbaffb-dfb3-06e7-d01f-ae583ee0c012@zytor.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Apr 2020 02:40:01 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200423021021.GA16982@udknight>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-04-22 19:10, Wang YanQing wrote:
> 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?
> 

x86-32 or i386.

	-hpa