| Message ID | 1616032552-39866-1-git-send-email-jiapeng.chong@linux.alibaba.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | BPF |
| Headers | show |
| Series | selftests/bpf: fix warning comparing pointer to 0 | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Not a local patch |
On 3/18/21 2:55 AM, 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> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c > index 5f645fd..d4247d6 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c > @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ struct bpf_fentry_test_t { > SEC("fentry/bpf_fentry_test7") > int BPF_PROG(test7, struct bpf_fentry_test_t *arg) > { > - if (arg == 0) > + if (!arg) > test7_result = 1; > return 0; > } > @@ -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; > } > This doesn't apply. Please rebase against bpf-next tree, and also make sure to squash any other such patches into a single one.
On 2021/3/19 0:23, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 3/18/21 2:55 AM, 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> >> --- >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c >> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c >> index 5f645fd..d4247d6 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c >> @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ struct bpf_fentry_test_t { >> SEC("fentry/bpf_fentry_test7") >> int BPF_PROG(test7, struct bpf_fentry_test_t *arg) >> { >> - if (arg == 0) >> + if (!arg) >> test7_result = 1; >> return 0; >> } >> @@ -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; >> } >> > > This doesn't apply. Please rebase against bpf-next tree, and also make > sure to > squash any other such patches into a single one. OK, I'll submit it to the latest branch bpf-next tree later.
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c index 5f645fd..d4247d6 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ struct bpf_fentry_test_t { SEC("fentry/bpf_fentry_test7") int BPF_PROG(test7, struct bpf_fentry_test_t *arg) { - if (arg == 0) + if (!arg) test7_result = 1; return 0; } @@ -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; }
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> --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)