On 12/3/21 8:06 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
On Fri, 2021-12-03 at 17:24 -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:
On 12/3/21 12:50 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
On Fri, 2021-12-03 at 11:26 -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:
On 11/24/21 5:56 PM, davidcomponentone@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Yang Guang <yang.guang5@xxxxxxxxxx>
The coccinelle report
./tools/testing/selftests/mount/unprivileged-remount-test.c:285:54-59:
WARNING: conversion to bool not needed here
./tools/testing/selftests/mount/unprivileged-remount-test.c:207:54-59:
WARNING: conversion to bool not needed here
Relational and logical operators evaluate to bool,
explicit conversion is overly verbose and unneeded.
Reported-by: Zeal Robot <zealci@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Yang Guang <yang.guang5@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
tools/testing/selftests/mount/unprivileged-remount-test.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mount/unprivileged-remount-test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mount/unprivileged-remount-test.c
index 584dc6bc3b06..d2917054fe3a 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/mount/unprivileged-remount-test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mount/unprivileged-remount-test.c
@@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ bool test_unpriv_remount(const char *fstype, const char *mount_options,
if (!WIFEXITED(status)) {
die("child did not terminate cleanly\n");
}
- return WEXITSTATUS(status) == EXIT_SUCCESS ? true : false;
+ return WEXITSTATUS(status) == EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
create_and_enter_userns();
@@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static bool test_priv_mount_unpriv_remount(void)
if (!WIFEXITED(status)) {
die("child did not terminate cleanly\n");
}
- return WEXITSTATUS(status) == EXIT_SUCCESS ? true : false;
+ return WEXITSTATUS(status) == EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
orig_mnt_flags = read_mnt_flags(orig_path);
This change doesn't look right. WEXITSTATUS(status) return could be
1 or 0 or negative.
The change is at least logically correct.
And isn't WEXITSTATUS range limited from 0->255 ?
https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Exit-Status.html
You are right. In any case, I don't see any value in changing the current
logic. The way it is coded is cryptic enough :)
Well, it'd be more like the rest of the kernel when changed.
bool function()
{
...
return <foo> ? true : false;
}
is pretty redundant.
Fair enough.
Yang Guang,
Applied patch. In the future, make sure to use selftests/<test>: convention
for patch summary. I fixed this one for now.
thanks,
-- Shuah
