On 5/30/22 11:28 AM, Pu Lehui wrote:
The members of bpf_prog_info, which are line_info, jited_line_info, jited_ksyms and jited_func_lens, store u64 address pointed to the corresponding memory regions. Memory addresses are conceptually unsigned, (unsigned long) casting makes more sense, so let's make a change for conceptual uniformity. Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@xxxxxxxxxx> --- tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c | 9 +++++---- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c index 5c503096ef43..7beb060d0671 100644 --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c @@ -127,7 +127,8 @@ struct bpf_prog_linfo *bpf_prog_linfo__new(const struct bpf_prog_info *info) prog_linfo->raw_linfo = malloc(data_sz); if (!prog_linfo->raw_linfo) goto err_free; - memcpy(prog_linfo->raw_linfo, (void *)(long)info->line_info, data_sz); + memcpy(prog_linfo->raw_linfo, (void *)(unsigned long)info->line_info, + data_sz);
Took in patch 1-3, lgtm, thanks! My question around the cleanups in patch 4-6 ... there are various other such cases e.g. in libbpf, perhaps makes sense to clean all of them up at once and not just the 4 locations in here. Thanks, Daniel
