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@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Hongbo Yao <yaohongbo@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
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.
{
