On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 16:29:27 +0200 Stephen Kitt <steve@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Update the docs throughout to remove zero-length arrays, replacing > them with C99 flexible array members. GCC will then ensure that the > arrays are always the last element in the struct. I appreciate the thought but... > diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst b/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst > index 4d565d202ce3..24ce50fc1fc1 100644 > --- a/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst > +++ b/Documentation/bpf/btf.rst > @@ -670,7 +670,7 @@ func_info for each specific ELF section.:: > __u32 sec_name_off; /* offset to section name */ > __u32 num_info; > /* Followed by num_info * record_size number of bytes */ > - __u8 data[0]; > + __u8 data[]; > }; I only checked this one, but found what I had expected: the actual definition of this structure (found in tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_internal.h) says "data[0]". We can't really make the documentation read the way we *wish* the source would be, we need to document reality. I'm pretty sure that most of the other examples will be the same. If you really want to fix these, the right solution is to fix the offending structures — one patch per structure — in the source, then update the documentation to match the new reality. Thanks, jon
