Re: [PATCH v4] tools/bpf: Fix the wrong format specifier

[Quentin Monnet <qmo@kernel.org>]

2024-07-24 17:43 UTC+0200 ~ Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
>> The format specifier of "unsigned int" in printf() should be "%u", not
>> "%d".
> 
> * Please improve the change description with imperative wordings.
>   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.10#n94
> 


The wording is fine. The commit subject does use imperative. If
anything, the subsystem prefix should be "bpftool" rather than
"tools/bpf", something that can be addressed when applying, perhaps.


> * Would you like to add any tags (like “Fixes” and “Cc”) accordingly?
>   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.10#n145


"Fixes:" arguably, although there's no bug being fixed here, it's just a
clean-up. No need to respin the patch for that. Also there's no need to
Cc the author here, Jiong no longer works on this and the email address
you'll find in the logs is no longer valid.


> 
> 
> …
>> ---
>> Changes:
> …
> v4:
> Thanks! But unsigned seems relevant here, …
> 
> Please adjust the representation of information from a patch review by Quentin Monnet.
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/2d6875dd-6050-4f57-9a6d-9168634aa6c4@kernel.org/
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2024/7/24/378


I'm not sure what you mean here. This part won't be kept in the commit
description anyway.

Zhu, for future patches I'd recommend keeping the history above the
comment delimiter (so that it makes it into the final patch
description), and writing a real description rather than copy/pasting
the feedback, which I believe is what Markus is commenting about?


> 
> 
> …
>> +++ b/tools/bpf/bpftool/xlated_dumper.c
>> @@ -349,7 +349,7 @@ void dump_xlated_plain(struct dump_data *dd, void *buf, unsigned int len,
>>
>>  		double_insn = insn[i].code == (BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW);
>>
>> -		printf("% 4d: ", i);
>> +		printf("%4u: ", i);
>>  		print_bpf_insn(&cbs, insn + i, true);
> …
> 
> How do you think about to care more also for the return value from such a function call?
> https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/confluence/display/c/ERR33-C.+Detect+and+handle+standard+library+errors

Apologies, I'm afraid I don't understand what you're asking here, can
you please rephrase?

As far as I'm concerned I'm good with the current version of the patch.
Quentin