Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH -next] bpf: make btf_check_func_type_match() static | From | Yao HongBo <> | Date | Mon, 3 Feb 2020 16:16:17 +0800 |
| |
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.
>> { >> > > . >
| |