| Message ID | 20200203020220.117152-1-yaohongbo@huawei.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | BPF Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [-next] bpf: make btf_check_func_type_match() static | expand |
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. > { >
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. >> { >> > > . >
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) {
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(-)