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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > 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!
