* [PATCH -next] bpf: make btf_check_func_type_match() static
@ 2020-02-03 2:02 Hongbo Yao
2020-02-03 6:20 ` Yonghong Song
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Hongbo Yao @ 2020-02-03 2:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ast, daniel
Cc: yaohongbo, chenzhou10, kafai, songliubraving, yhs, andriin,
netdev, bpf, linux-kernel, clang-built-linux
Fix sparse warning:
kernel/bpf/btf.c:4131:5: warning: symbol 'btf_check_func_type_match' was
not declared. Should it be static?
Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Hongbo Yao <yaohongbo@huawei.com>
---
kernel/bpf/btf.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf.c b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
index 8c9d8f266bef..83d3d92023af 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
@@ -4144,7 +4144,7 @@ int btf_distill_func_proto(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
* EFAULT - verifier bug
* 0 - 99% match. The last 1% is validated by the verifier.
*/
-int btf_check_func_type_match(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
+static int btf_check_func_type_match(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
struct btf *btf1, const struct btf_type *t1,
struct btf *btf2, const struct btf_type *t2)
{
--
2.20.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH -next] bpf: make btf_check_func_type_match() static
2020-02-03 2:02 [PATCH -next] bpf: make btf_check_func_type_match() static Hongbo Yao
@ 2020-02-03 6:20 ` Yonghong Song
2020-02-03 8:16 ` Yao HongBo
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Yonghong Song @ 2020-02-03 6:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hongbo Yao, ast, daniel
Cc: chenzhou10, kafai, songliubraving, andriin, netdev, bpf,
linux-kernel, clang-built-linux
On 2/2/20 6:02 PM, Hongbo Yao wrote:
> Fix sparse warning:
> kernel/bpf/btf.c:4131:5: warning: symbol 'btf_check_func_type_match' was
> not declared. Should it be static?
Yes, static is better since the function is only used in one file.
Please use the tag "[PATCH bpf-next]" instead of "[PATCH -next]".
Since this is to fix a sparse warning, I think it should be okay
to target bpf-next. Please resubmit after bpf-next reopens in
about a week.
>
> Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Hongbo Yao <yaohongbo@huawei.com>
> ---
> kernel/bpf/btf.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf.c b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> index 8c9d8f266bef..83d3d92023af 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> @@ -4144,7 +4144,7 @@ int btf_distill_func_proto(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
> * EFAULT - verifier bug
> * 0 - 99% match. The last 1% is validated by the verifier.
> */
> -int btf_check_func_type_match(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
> +static int btf_check_func_type_match(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
> struct btf *btf1, const struct btf_type *t1,
> struct btf *btf2, const struct btf_type *t2)
Please also align
struct btf *btf1, const struct btf_type *t1,
struct btf *btf2, const struct btf_type *t2)
properly after you added 'static' before the function declaration.
> {
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH -next] bpf: make btf_check_func_type_match() static
2020-02-03 6:20 ` Yonghong Song
@ 2020-02-03 8:16 ` Yao HongBo
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Yao HongBo @ 2020-02-03 8:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yonghong Song, ast, daniel
Cc: chenzhou10, kafai, songliubraving, andriin, netdev, bpf,
linux-kernel, clang-built-linux
On 2/3/2020 2:20 PM, Yonghong Song wrote:
>
>
> On 2/2/20 6:02 PM, Hongbo Yao wrote:
>> Fix sparse warning:
>> kernel/bpf/btf.c:4131:5: warning: symbol 'btf_check_func_type_match' was
>> not declared. Should it be static?
>
> Yes, static is better since the function is only used in one file.
>
> Please use the tag "[PATCH bpf-next]" instead of "[PATCH -next]".
> Since this is to fix a sparse warning, I think it should be okay
> to target bpf-next. Please resubmit after bpf-next reopens in
> about a week.
OK.
>>
>> Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Hongbo Yao <yaohongbo@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/bpf/btf.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf.c b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
>> index 8c9d8f266bef..83d3d92023af 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
>> @@ -4144,7 +4144,7 @@ int btf_distill_func_proto(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
>> * EFAULT - verifier bug
>> * 0 - 99% match. The last 1% is validated by the verifier.
>> */
>> -int btf_check_func_type_match(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
>> +static int btf_check_func_type_match(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
>> struct btf *btf1, const struct btf_type *t1,
>> struct btf *btf2, const struct btf_type *t2)
>
> Please also align
> struct btf *btf1, const struct btf_type *t1,
> struct btf *btf2, const struct btf_type *t2)
> properly after you added 'static' before the function declaration.
I'll fix it, thanks.
>> {
>>
>
> .
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-02-03 8:16 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-02-03 2:02 [PATCH -next] bpf: make btf_check_func_type_match() static Hongbo Yao
2020-02-03 6:20 ` Yonghong Song
2020-02-03 8:16 ` Yao HongBo
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).