diff mbox series

[-next] mm/usercopy: fix warning Comparison to bool

Message ID 1586835724-45738-1-git-send-email-zou_wei@huawei.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show
Series [-next] mm/usercopy: fix warning Comparison to bool | expand

Commit Message

Zou Wei April 14, 2020, 3:42 a.m. UTC
fix below warnings reported by coccicheck

mm/usercopy.c:304:5-18: WARNING: Comparison to bool

Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Zou Wei <zou_wei@huawei.com>
---
 mm/usercopy.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Andrew Morton April 15, 2020, 11:04 p.m. UTC | #1
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 11:42:04 +0800 Zou Wei <zou_wei@huawei.com> wrote:

> fix below warnings reported by coccicheck
> 
> mm/usercopy.c:304:5-18: WARNING: Comparison to bool
>
> ...
>
> --- a/mm/usercopy.c
> +++ b/mm/usercopy.c
> @@ -301,7 +301,7 @@ __setup("hardened_usercopy=", parse_hardened_usercopy);
>  
>  static int __init set_hardened_usercopy(void)
>  {
> -	if (enable_checks == false)
> +	if (!enable_checks)
>  		static_branch_enable(&bypass_usercopy_checks);
>  	return 1;
>  }

My initial reaction is "fix coccicheck".  There's nothing wrong with
that code?
Zou Wei April 16, 2020, 10:45 a.m. UTC | #2
Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your reply.
Perhaps this is a detection rule of Coccinelle (coccicheck) software for programming specifications,
and it's no wrong with the code, just a coding style.

Best Regards
Zou Wei
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Andrew Morton [mailto:akpm@linux-foundation.org] 
发送时间: 2020年4月16日 7:05
收件人: Zouwei (Samuel) <zou_wei@huawei.com>
抄送: linux-mm@kvack.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
主题: Re: [PATCH -next] mm/usercopy: fix warning Comparison to bool

On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 11:42:04 +0800 Zou Wei <zou_wei@huawei.com> wrote:

> fix below warnings reported by coccicheck
> 
> mm/usercopy.c:304:5-18: WARNING: Comparison to bool
>
> ...
>
> --- a/mm/usercopy.c
> +++ b/mm/usercopy.c
> @@ -301,7 +301,7 @@ __setup("hardened_usercopy=", 
> parse_hardened_usercopy);
>  
>  static int __init set_hardened_usercopy(void)  {
> -	if (enable_checks == false)
> +	if (!enable_checks)
>  		static_branch_enable(&bypass_usercopy_checks);
>  	return 1;
>  }

My initial reaction is "fix coccicheck".  There's nothing wrong with that code?
David Hildenbrand April 16, 2020, 11:23 a.m. UTC | #3
On 16.04.20 12:45, Zouwei (Samuel) wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> Thanks for your reply.
> Perhaps this is a detection rule of Coccinelle (coccicheck) software for programming specifications,
> and it's no wrong with the code, just a coding style.

Then it's not an actual fix and the subject is misleading.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/mm/usercopy.c b/mm/usercopy.c
index 660717a..04346cf 100644
--- a/mm/usercopy.c
+++ b/mm/usercopy.c
@@ -301,7 +301,7 @@  __setup("hardened_usercopy=", parse_hardened_usercopy);
 
 static int __init set_hardened_usercopy(void)
 {
-	if (enable_checks == false)
+	if (!enable_checks)
 		static_branch_enable(&bypass_usercopy_checks);
 	return 1;
 }