On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 12:15 PM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 11:29 PM Yuntao Wang <ytcoode@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > The check 't->size && t->size != size' is redundant because if t->size
> > compares unequal to 0, we will just skip straight to sorting variables.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yuntao Wang <ytcoode@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> > index ad43b6ce825e..7e978feaf822 100644
> > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> > @@ -2795,7 +2795,7 @@ static int btf_fixup_datasec(struct bpf_object *obj, struct btf *btf,
> > goto sort_vars;
> >
> > ret = find_elf_sec_sz(obj, name, &size);
> > - if (ret || !size || (t->size && t->size != size)) {
>
> t->size check is redundant, but (t->size != size) is not
ah, never mind :) applied to bpf-next
>
> > + if (ret || !size) {
> > pr_debug("Invalid size for section %s: %u bytes\n", name, size);
> > return -ENOENT;
> > }
> > --
> > 2.35.1
> >
