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@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.
I'll fix it, thanks.
>> {
>>
>
> .
>
