On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:21:17PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 04/27/2018 09:39 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:55:46AM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:20:25AM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote: > >>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 05:04:59PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > >>>> We know "err" is zero so we can remove these and pull the code in one > >>>> indent level. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Thanks for the simplification! > >>> > >>> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@xxxxxx> > >> btw, it should be for bpf-next. Please tag the subject with bpf-next when > >> you respin. Thanks! > > Dan, thanks a lot for your fixes! Please respin with addressing Martin's > feedback when you get a chance. > My understanding is that he'd prefer we just ignore the static checker warning since it's a false positive. Should I instead initialize the size to zero or something just to silence it? regards, dan carpenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
