> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 2:52 AM Yang Li <yang.lee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Fix the following coccicheck warnings:
> > ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:189:7-11: WARNING
> > comparing pointer to 0, suggest !E
> > ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:361:7-11: WARNING
> > comparing pointer to 0, suggest !E
> > ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:386:14-18: WARNING
> > comparing pointer to 0, suggest !E
> > ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:402:14-18: WARNING
> > comparing pointer to 0, suggest !E
> > ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:433:7-11: WARNING
> > comparing pointer to 0, suggest !E
> > ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:534:14-18: WARNING
> > comparing pointer to 0, suggest !E
> > ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:625:7-11: WARNING
> > comparing pointer to 0, suggest !E
> > ./tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h:767:7-11: WARNING
> > comparing pointer to 0, suggest !E
> >
> > Reported-by: Abaci Robot <abaci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Yang Li <yang.lee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h | 22 +++++++++++-----------
> > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h
> > index 4896fdf8..a33066c 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/profiler.inc.h
> > @@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ static INLINE void populate_ancestors(struct task_struct* task,
> > #endif
> > for (num_ancestors = 0; num_ancestors < MAX_ANCESTORS; num_ancestors++) {
> > parent = BPF_CORE_READ(parent, real_parent);
> > - if (parent == NULL)
> > + if (!parent)
>
> Sorry, but I'd like the progs to stay as close as possible to the way
> they were written.
Why?
> They might not adhere to kernel coding style in some cases.
> The code could be grossly inefficient and even buggy.
There would have to be a really good reason to accept
grossly inefficient and even buggy code into the kernel.
Can you please explain what that reason is?
> Please don't run spell checks, coccicheck, checkpatch.pl on them.
-- Tim
