From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759267AbeD0UcN (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2018 16:32:13 -0400 Received: from aserp2120.oracle.com ([141.146.126.78]:60484 "EHLO aserp2120.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759241AbeD0UcL (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2018 16:32:11 -0400 Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 23:31:36 +0300 From: Dan Carpenter To: Daniel Borkmann Cc: Martin KaFai Lau , Alexei Starovoitov , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] bpf: btf: remove a couple conditions Message-ID: <20180427203135.mjkqoofbanozxzkd@mwanda> References: <20180427140459.GB19583@mwanda> <20180427172023.6japncdd3nbqauzn@kafai-mbp> <20180427175544.vydqf4iufopcyv6d@kafai-mbp> <20180427193959.3nebosalgl3ch4mv@mwanda> <21126ae9-5178-5d09-679c-6bca57ad48e8@iogearbox.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <21126ae9-5178-5d09-679c-6bca57ad48e8@iogearbox.net> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5900 definitions=8876 signatures=668698 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=787 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1804270193 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:21:17PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 04/27/2018 09:39 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:55:46AM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:20:25AM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote: > >>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 05:04:59PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > >>>> We know "err" is zero so we can remove these and pull the code in one > >>>> indent level. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter > >>> Thanks for the simplification! > >>> > >>> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau > >> btw, it should be for bpf-next. Please tag the subject with bpf-next when > >> you respin. Thanks! > > Dan, thanks a lot for your fixes! Please respin with addressing Martin's > feedback when you get a chance. > My understanding is that he'd prefer we just ignore the static checker warning since it's a false positive. Should I instead initialize the size to zero or something just to silence it? regards, dan carpenter From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Carpenter Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 20:31:36 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] bpf: btf: remove a couple conditions Message-Id: <20180427203135.mjkqoofbanozxzkd@mwanda> List-Id: References: <20180427140459.GB19583@mwanda> <20180427172023.6japncdd3nbqauzn@kafai-mbp> <20180427175544.vydqf4iufopcyv6d@kafai-mbp> <20180427193959.3nebosalgl3ch4mv@mwanda> <21126ae9-5178-5d09-679c-6bca57ad48e8@iogearbox.net> In-Reply-To: <21126ae9-5178-5d09-679c-6bca57ad48e8@iogearbox.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Daniel Borkmann Cc: Martin KaFai Lau , Alexei Starovoitov , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:21:17PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 04/27/2018 09:39 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:55:46AM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:20:25AM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote: > >>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 05:04:59PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > >>>> We know "err" is zero so we can remove these and pull the code in one > >>>> indent level. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter > >>> Thanks for the simplification! > >>> > >>> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau > >> btw, it should be for bpf-next. Please tag the subject with bpf-next when > >> you respin. Thanks! > > Dan, thanks a lot for your fixes! Please respin with addressing Martin's > feedback when you get a chance. > My understanding is that he'd prefer we just ignore the static checker warning since it's a false positive. Should I instead initialize the size to zero or something just to silence it? regards, dan carpenter