Re: [RFC bpf-next 10/11] selftests/bpf: tests to verify handling of inlined kfuncs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 11/7/2024 2:08 PM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-11-07 at 14:04 -0800, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> Since commit 1fffe7a34c89 ("script: modpost: emit a warning when the
>> description is missing"), a module without a MODULE_DESCRIPTION() will
>> result in a warning when built with make W=1. Not sure if this is
>> applicable to your new module, but if so, please add the missing
>> MODULE_DESCRIPTION().
>>
> 
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> Thank you for the heads-up.
> The MODULE_DESCRIPTION is already present in the bpf_testmod.c
> (this file is renamed in the RFC, but remains as a part of the module).

Does bpf_testmod.c already have a MODULE_LICENSE(). If so, then I'd drop the
extra one in test_inlinable_kfuncs.c.

My reviews on this subject are triggered by the lore search pattern:
MODULE_LICENSE AND NOT MODULE_DESCRIPTION

Since it is expected that the two should appear together.




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux