Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 4/6] libbpf: Unify memory address casting operation style

[Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>]

On 2022/5/31 5:03, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 5/30/22 11:28 AM, Pu Lehui wrote:
>> The members of bpf_prog_info, which are line_info, jited_line_info,
>> jited_ksyms and jited_func_lens, store u64 address pointed to the
>> corresponding memory regions. Memory addresses are conceptually
>> unsigned, (unsigned long) casting makes more sense, so let's make
>> a change for conceptual uniformity.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>   tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c | 9 +++++----
>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c 
>> b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c
>> index 5c503096ef43..7beb060d0671 100644
>> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c
>> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf_prog_linfo.c
>> @@ -127,7 +127,8 @@ struct bpf_prog_linfo *bpf_prog_linfo__new(const 
>> struct bpf_prog_info *info)
>>       prog_linfo->raw_linfo = malloc(data_sz);
>>       if (!prog_linfo->raw_linfo)
>>           goto err_free;
>> -    memcpy(prog_linfo->raw_linfo, (void *)(long)info->line_info, 
>> data_sz);
>> +    memcpy(prog_linfo->raw_linfo, (void *)(unsigned 
>> long)info->line_info,
>> +           data_sz);
> 
> Took in patch 1-3, lgtm, thanks! My question around the cleanups in 
> patch 4-6 ...
> there are various other such cases e.g. in libbpf, perhaps makes sense 
> to clean all
> of them up at once and not just the 4 locations in here.
> 

sorry for reply so late, I will take this soon.

> Thanks,
> Daniel
> .