* Wen Yang <wen.yan...@zte.com.cn> 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 <wen.yan...@zte.com.cn>
> CC: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>
> CC: Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org>
> CC: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.w...@oracle.com>
> CC: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoim...@redhat.com>
> CC: "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <pet...@infraded.org>
> CC: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>
> CC: Mukesh Ojha <mo...@codeaurora.org>
> CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> ---
> 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
