On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 08:22:31AM +0100, Jean-Philippe Menil wrote:
> Fix build warnings when building net/bpf/test_run.o with W=1 due
> to missing prototype for bpf_fentry_test{1..6}.
>
> Declare prototypes in order to silence warnings.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jean-Philippe Menil <jpmenil@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> net/bpf/test_run.c | 6 ++++++
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/net/bpf/test_run.c b/net/bpf/test_run.c
> index d555c0d8657d..cdf87fb0b6eb 100644
> --- a/net/bpf/test_run.c
> +++ b/net/bpf/test_run.c
> @@ -113,31 +113,37 @@ static int bpf_test_finish(const union bpf_attr *kattr,
> * architecture dependent calling conventions. 7+ can be supported in the
> * future.
> */
> +int noinline bpf_fentry_test1(int a);
> int noinline bpf_fentry_test1(int a)
> {
> return a + 1;
> }
>
> +int noinline bpf_fentry_test2(int a, u64 b);
> int noinline bpf_fentry_test2(int a, u64 b)
> {
> return a + b;
> }
>
> +int noinline bpf_fentry_test3(char a, int b, u64 c);
> int noinline bpf_fentry_test3(char a, int b, u64 c)
> {
> return a + b + c;
> }
>
> +int noinline bpf_fentry_test4(void *a, char b, int c, u64 d);
> int noinline bpf_fentry_test4(void *a, char b, int c, u64 d)
> {
> return (long)a + b + c + d;
> }
>
> +int noinline bpf_fentry_test5(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, u64 e);
> int noinline bpf_fentry_test5(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, u64 e)
> {
> return a + (long)b + c + d + e;
> }
>
> +int noinline bpf_fentry_test6(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e, u64 f);
> int noinline bpf_fentry_test6(u64 a, void *b, short c, int d, void *e, u64 f)
That's a bit too much of "watery water".
Have you considered
__diag_push();
__diag_ignore(GCC, "-Wwhatever specific flag will shut up this warn")
__diag_pop();
approach ?
It will be self documenting as well.
