On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 02:26:50PM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote: > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:31:36PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > 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. > Right, I think patch 1 is not needed. I would prefer to use a comment > in those cases. > > > Should I instead initialize the > > size to zero or something just to silence it? After another thought, I think init size to zero is fine which is less intrusive. Thanks! Martin > > > > 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
