Re: [PATCH] selftests/bpf: Remove unneeded variable "ret"

[Yonghong Song]

On 6/13/23 1:50 AM, baomingtong001@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Fix the following coccicheck warning:
>
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf6.c:28:14-17: Unneeded 
> variable: "ret".
>
> Return "1".
>
> Signed-off-by: Mingtong Bao <baomingtong001@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf6.c | 3 +--
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf6.c 
> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf6.c
> index 4a9f63bea66c..7f0146682577 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf6.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf6.c
> @@ -25,10 +25,9 @@ static __noinline
>   int subprog_tail(struct __sk_buff *skb)
>   {
>       /* Don't propagate the constant to the caller */
> -    volatile int ret = 1;
>
>       bpf_tail_call_static(skb, &jmp_table, 0);
> -    return ret;
> +    return 1;

Please pay attention to the comment:
   /* Don't propagate the constant to the caller */
which clearly says 'constant' is not preferred.

The patch introduced this change is:
    5e0b0a4c52d30   selftests/bpf: Test tail call counting with bpf2bpf 
and data on stack

The test intentionally want to:
  'Specifically when the size 

    of data allocated on BPF stack is not a multiple on 8.'

Note that with volatile and without volatile, the generated
code will be different and it will result in different
verification path.

cc Jakub for further clarification.

>   }
>
>   SEC("tc")