diff mbox series

[next] bpf: replace redundant |= operation with assignmen

Message ID 20241031130704.3249126-1-colin.i.king@gmail.com (mailing list archive)
State Changes Requested
Delegated to: BPF
Headers show
Series [next] bpf: replace redundant |= operation with assignmen | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
netdev/tree_selection success Guessing tree name failed - patch did not apply
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-2 success Logs for Unittests
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-1 success Logs for ShellCheck
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-0 success Logs for Lint
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-3 success Logs for Validate matrix.py
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-4 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / build / build for aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-5 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / build-release
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-10 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-12 success Logs for s390x-gcc / build-release
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-9 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-7 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-6 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-8 fail Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-11 success Logs for s390x-gcc / build / build for s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-17 success Logs for set-matrix
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-16 success Logs for s390x-gcc / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-18 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / build / build for x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-19 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / build-release
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-27 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / build / build for x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-28 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / build-release / build for x86_64 with llvm-17-O2
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-33 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-34 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / build / build for x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-35 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / build-release / build for x86_64 with llvm-18-O2
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-41 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-15 success Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-13 success Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-14 success Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-20 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-21 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-22 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-23 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32_parallel, true, 30) / test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-25 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-26 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / veristat / veristat on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-24 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs_parallel, true, 30) / test_progs_parallel on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-29 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-31 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-32 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-40 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-36 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-PR fail PR summary
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-30 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-38 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_progs_cpuv4, false, 360) / test_progs_cpuv4 on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-37 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-39 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with llvm-18

Commit Message

Colin Ian King Oct. 31, 2024, 1:07 p.m. UTC 
The operation msk |= ~0ULL contains a redundant bit-wise or operation
since all the bits are going to be set to 1, so replace this with
an assignment since this is more optimal and probably clearer too.

Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@gmail.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/inode.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Andrii Nakryiko Nov. 1, 2024, 7:30 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 6:07 AM Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The operation msk |= ~0ULL contains a redundant bit-wise or operation
> since all the bits are going to be set to 1, so replace this with
> an assignment since this is more optimal and probably clearer too.
>
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@gmail.com>
> ---
>  kernel/bpf/inode.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/inode.c b/kernel/bpf/inode.c
> index 9aaf5124648b..fea07e12601f 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/inode.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/inode.c
> @@ -914,7 +914,7 @@ static int bpf_parse_param(struct fs_context *fc, struct fs_parameter *param)
>                 str = param->string;
>                 while ((p = strsep(&str, ":"))) {
>                         if (strcmp(p, "any") == 0) {
> -                               msk |= ~0ULL;
> +                               msk = ~0ULL;

This was done for consistency with the other branch. Is there anything
wrong with this code? Doesn't seem so, so I'd like to keep it as is.

pw-bot: cr

>                         } else if (find_btf_enum_const(info.btf, enum_t, enum_pfx, p, &val)) {
>                                 msk |= 1ULL << val;
>                         } else {
> --
> 2.39.5
>
Christian Heusel Nov. 2, 2024, 11:27 a.m. UTC | #2 
On 24/10/31 01:07PM, Colin Ian King wrote:
> The operation msk |= ~0ULL contains a redundant bit-wise or operation
> since all the bits are going to be set to 1, so replace this with
> an assignment since this is more optimal and probably clearer too.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@gmail.com>
> ---
>  kernel/bpf/inode.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/inode.c b/kernel/bpf/inode.c
> index 9aaf5124648b..fea07e12601f 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/inode.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/inode.c
> @@ -914,7 +914,7 @@ static int bpf_parse_param(struct fs_context *fc, struct fs_parameter *param)
>  		str = param->string;
>  		while ((p = strsep(&str, ":"))) {
>  			if (strcmp(p, "any") == 0) {
> -				msk |= ~0ULL;
> +				msk = ~0ULL;
>  			} else if (find_btf_enum_const(info.btf, enum_t, enum_pfx, p, &val)) {
>  				msk |= 1ULL << val;
>  			} else {
> -- 
> 2.39.5

The patch subject contains a typo ("assignmen" should be "assignment"),
but maybe this can just be fixed on apply ..

Cheers,
Chris
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/inode.c b/kernel/bpf/inode.c
index 9aaf5124648b..fea07e12601f 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/inode.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/inode.c
@@ -914,7 +914,7 @@  static int bpf_parse_param(struct fs_context *fc, struct fs_parameter *param)
 		str = param->string;
 		while ((p = strsep(&str, ":"))) {
 			if (strcmp(p, "any") == 0) {
-				msk |= ~0ULL;
+				msk = ~0ULL;
 			} else if (find_btf_enum_const(info.btf, enum_t, enum_pfx, p, &val)) {
 				msk |= 1ULL << val;
 			} else {