On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 11:54:53AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 15:07:52 +0300 > Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sat, Jul 29, 2023 at 03:55:47PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > @@ -1761,6 +1761,11 @@ static int parse_pred(const char *str, void *data, > > > > FILTER_PRED_FN_CPUMASK; > > > > } else if (field->filter_type == FILTER_CPU) { > > > > pred->fn_num = FILTER_PRED_FN_CPU_CPUMASK; > > > > + } else if (single) { > > > > + pred->op = pred->op == OP_BAND ? OP_EQ : pred->op; > > > > > > Nit, the above can be written as: > > > > > > pred->op = pret->op != OP_BAND ? : OP_EQ; > > > > > > > Heh. Those are not equivalent. The right way to write this is: > > You mean because of my typo? No, I hadn't seen the s/pred/pret/ typo. Your code does: if (pred->op != OP_BAND) pred->op = true; else pred->op OP_EQ; Realy we should probably trigger a static checker warning any time someone does a compare operations as part of a "x = comparison ?: bar; Years ago, someone asked me to do that with regards to error codes like: return ret < 0 ?: -EINVAL; but I don't remember the results. regards, dan carpenter