Commit 6018e1f407cc ("bpf: implement numbers iterator") added the
BTF_TYPE_EMIT line that this patch is modifying. The struct btf_iter_num
doesn't exist, so only a forward declaration is emitted in BTF:
FWD 'btf_iter_num' fwd_kind=struct
That commit was probably hoping to ensure that struct bpf_iter_num is
emitted in vmlinux BTF. A previous version of this patch changed the
line to emit the correct type, but Yonghong confirmed that it would
definitely be emitted regardless in [0], so this patch simply removes
the line.
This isn't marked "Fixes" because the extraneous btf_iter_num FWD wasn't
causing any issues that I noticed, aside from mild confusion when I
looked through the code.
[0]: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/25d08207-43e6-36a8-5e0f-47a913d4cda5@xxxxxxxxx/
Signed-off-by: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@xxxxxx>
---
kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c
index 96856f130cbf..833faa04461b 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c
@@ -793,8 +793,6 @@ __bpf_kfunc int bpf_iter_num_new(struct bpf_iter_num *it, int start, int end)
BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct bpf_iter_num_kern) != sizeof(struct bpf_iter_num));
BUILD_BUG_ON(__alignof__(struct bpf_iter_num_kern) != __alignof__(struct bpf_iter_num));
- BTF_TYPE_EMIT(struct btf_iter_num);
-
/* start == end is legit, it's an empty range and we'll just get NULL
* on first (and any subsequent) bpf_iter_num_next() call
*/
--
2.34.1
