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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1619085648-36826-1-git-send-email-jiapeng.chong@linux.alibaba.com>
 <7ecb85e6-410b-65bb-a042-74045ee17c3f@iogearbox.net> <93957f3e-2274-c389-64a4-235ed8a228bf@linux.alibaba.com>
In-Reply-To: <93957f3e-2274-c389-64a4-235ed8a228bf@linux.alibaba.com>
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:47:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CAADnVQJoJW9GWk4guqzHQkDPD4RWoh-puVhnfW0LBPT_N6-4HA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/bpf: fix warning comparing pointer to 0
To:     Abaci Robot <abaci@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Jiapeng Chong <jiapeng.chong@linux.alibaba.com>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 4:57 AM Abaci Robot <abaci@linux.alibaba.com> wrote=
:
>
> =E5=9C=A8 2021/4/23 =E4=B8=8A=E5=8D=885:56, Daniel Borkmann =E5=86=99=E9=
=81=93:
> > 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 =3D=3D 0)
> >> +    if (!arg->a)
> >>           test8_result =3D 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.