On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 2:03 PM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. if (void *)(long) pattern is wrong, then I guess the best replacement should be (void *)(uintptr_t) ? > > Thanks, > Daniel
