| Message ID | 20200420123727.3616-1-yanaijie@huawei.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | BPF Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | bpf, x32: remove unneeded conversion to bool | expand |
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
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? Thanks!
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
diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c index 4d2a7a764602..b41ba3517819 100644 --- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c +++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c @@ -1475,8 +1475,8 @@ static int do_jit(struct bpf_prog *bpf_prog, int *addrs, u8 *image, for (i = 0; i < insn_cnt; i++, insn++) { const s32 imm32 = insn->imm; const bool is64 = BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64; - const bool dstk = insn->dst_reg == BPF_REG_AX ? false : true; - const bool sstk = insn->src_reg == BPF_REG_AX ? false : true; + const bool dstk = insn->dst_reg != BPF_REG_AX; + const bool sstk = insn->src_reg != BPF_REG_AX; const u8 code = insn->code; const u8 *dst = bpf2ia32[insn->dst_reg]; const u8 *src = bpf2ia32[insn->src_reg];
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(-)