On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 12:37 PM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 11:17 PM Alexei Starovoitov > <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 9:55 PM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > In some environments (gcc treated as error in W=1, which is default), if we > > > make -C samples/bpf/, it will be stopped because of > > > "no previous prototype" error like this: > > > > > > ../samples/bpf/syscall_nrs.c:7:6: > > > error: no previous prototype for ‘syscall_defines’ [-Werror=missing-prototypes] > > > void syscall_defines(void) > > > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > samples/bpf/ doesn't accept patches any more. > > If this samples/test is useful, refactor it to the test_progs framework. > > Otherwise delete it. > > > > pw-bot: cr > > After reconsidering what Alexei said, I still feel we could take this > patch? It is because: > 1) the patch itself is more of a fix instead of optimization, > 2)as long as samples/bpf exists in the kernel, we cannot easily let > it(issues) go and ignore it. > > Applying such a patch won't cause any further confusion, right? As we > can see, it's like a fix which does not introduce anything new here. > > What do you bpf maintainers think? I think it's fine to minimally fix the issue in samples/bpf, but I don't think this weirdly-looking extra declaration is the best fix. Can you mark that function static? Will that work? Or, as a plan B, use pragma to disable this warning, it's clearly "expected" in this case. > > Thanks, > Jason
