On 22/6/26 23:24, [email protected] wrote: >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/global_data_init.c >> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/global_data_init.c >> index e4c290492ff8..32734e1dbfb0 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/global_data_init.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/global_data_init.c >> @@ -279,6 +279,56 @@ static void test_global_percpu_data_verifier_log(void) > > [ ... ] > >> + fd = bpf_iter_create(bpf_link__fd(link)); >> + if (!ASSERT_GE(fd, 0, "bpf_iter_create")) >> + goto out; >> + >> + while ((len = read(fd, buf, sizeof(buf))) > 0) >> + do { } while (0); >> + ASSERT_EQ(len, 0, "read iter"); > > This isn't a bug, but could the empty drain body here be a bare ';' > rather than 'do { } while (0);'? The other bpf_iter tests in this > directory (prog_tests/bpf_iter.c) drain the iterator fd with a bare ';', > so a plain ';' would read more like the neighbouring code. > > I think 'do { } while (0);' is more readable than a dangling ';', and avoids -Wempty-body warning btw.
Thanks, Leon
