| Message ID | 1619085648-36826-1-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 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 == 0) > + if (!arg->a) > test8_result = 1; > return 0; > } >
在 2021/4/23 上午5:56, Daniel Borkmann 写道: > 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 == 0) >> + if (!arg->a) >> test8_result = 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, because some contributors want the progs to stay as close as possible to the way they were written. (https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-kselftest/patch/1618307549-78149-1-git-send-email-yang.lee@linux.alibaba.com/) Details: We have checked the recent linux master (commit: 16fc44d6387e260f4932e9248b985837324705d8), and the related reports and their current status is shown as follows: ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c:67:12-13: WARNING comparing pointer to 0 (not appear in the bpf-next branch) ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c:76:15-16: WARNING comparing pointer to 0 (the above patch try to eliminate it) ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fexit_test.c:68:12-13: WARNING comparing pointer to 0 ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fexit_test.c:77:15-16: WARNING comparing pointer to 0 (eliminated in https://kernel.source.codeaurora.cn/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/?id=ebda107e5f222a086c83ddf6d1ab1da97dd15810) ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:364:18-22: WARNING comparing pointer to 0 ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:364:18-22: WARNING comparing pointer to 0, suggest !E ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:537:23-27: WARNING comparing pointer to 0 ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:537:23-27: WARNING comparing pointer to 0, suggest !E ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:544:21-25: WARNING comparing pointer to 0 ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:544:21-25: WARNING comparing pointer to 0, suggest !E ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:692:29-33: WARNING comparing pointer to 0 ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:770:13-17: WARNING comparing pointer to 0 (Discussed in https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-kselftest/patch/1618307549-78149-1-git-send-email-yang.lee@linux.alibaba.com/) ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_global_func10.c:17:12-13: WARNING comparing pointer to 0 (cleanup in https://kernel.source.codeaurora.cn/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/?id=04ea63e34a2ee85cfd38578b3fc97b2d4c9dd573) Thanks.
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 4:57 AM Abaci Robot <abaci@linux.alibaba.com> wrote: > > 在 2021/4/23 上午5:56, Daniel Borkmann 写道: > > 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 == 0) > >> + if (!arg->a) > >> test8_result = 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.
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 == 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 | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)