Re: [PATCH] net/bpf_jit: SPARC: drop unneeded semicolon

[email protected] Sat, 1 Aug 2026 19:44:56 +0000 (UTC)
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.kernel-janitors,org.kernel.vger.bpf,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.sparclinux
Message-ID <bf0ce87a4c9b050b1e438612e78517d5c321624fd09303341cc07bd172d2c627@mail.kernel.org>
--===============7729938306852420091==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> net/bpf_jit: SPARC: drop unneeded semicolon
>
>     When a function-like macro expands to an expression, that expression
>     doesn't need a semicolon after it.  All uses have been verified to
>     have their own semicolons.
>
>     This was found using the following Coccinelle semantic patch:
>
>     @r@
>     identifier i : script:ocaml() { String.lowercase_ascii i = i };
>     expression e;
>     @@
>
>     *#define i(...) e;
>
>     Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <[email protected]>

The change itself looks right.  Both emit_cmpi() and emit_btsti() are
only used from bpf_jit_compile(), and every one of those six call sites
already ends in its own semicolon, so the expansions stay well formed.

This isn't a bug, but would a prefix like "bpf, sparc:" fit better here?
The changed file is arch/sparc/net/bpf_jit_comp_32.c rather than anything
under net/, and earlier patches touching this file used prefixes along
the lines of "bpf, sparc:", "bpf, sparc64:" or "sparc: bpf:".


---
AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md

CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/30714427730
--===============7729938306852420091==--