* Wen Yang <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is the patch to the file cpu.c > which fixes the following coccinelle warning: > > WARNING: Comparison to bool > > Signed-off-by: Wen Yang <[email protected]> > CC: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> > CC: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> > CC: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <[email protected]> > CC: Josh Poimboeuf <[email protected]> > CC: "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <[email protected]> > CC: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> > CC: Mukesh Ojha <[email protected]> > CC: [email protected] > --- > kernel/cpu.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c > index 91d5c38eb7e5..5bdd7e150a11 100644 > --- a/kernel/cpu.c > +++ b/kernel/cpu.c > @@ -1650,7 +1650,7 @@ int __cpuhp_state_add_instance_cpuslocked(enum > cpuhp_state state, > lockdep_assert_cpus_held(); > > sp = cpuhp_get_step(state); > - if (sp->multi_instance == false) > + if (!sp->multi_instance) > return -EINVAL; > This is a *totally* bogus explanation. This is an equivalent pattern to '== 0' which is commonly used. The patch is still doing the right thing, but only accidentally, for another reason, it's because we are using ->multi_instance in an inconsistent fashion: kernel/cpu.c: if (!step->multi_instance) { kernel/cpu.c: if (sp->multi_instance == false) kernel/cpu.c: if (!sp->multi_instance) kernel/cpu.c: if (sp->multi_instance) { But that's really just by accident - if all usages were of the '== true/false' pattern then this wouldn't be necessary. Thanks, Ingo
