[PATCH] bpf, x32: remove unneeded conversion to bool

[PATCH] bpf, x32: remove unneeded conversion to bool

[Jason Yan]

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(-)

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];
-- 
2.21.1

Re: [PATCH] bpf, x32: remove unneeded conversion to bool

[H. Peter Anvin]

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

Re: [PATCH] bpf, x32: remove unneeded conversion to bool

[Wang YanQing]

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!

Re: [PATCH] bpf, x32: remove unneeded conversion to bool

[H. Peter Anvin]

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