Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] bpf: make btf_check_func_type_match() static
To:     Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>, <ast@kernel.org>,
        <daniel@iogearbox.net>
CC:     <chenzhou10@huawei.com>, <kafai@fb.com>, <songliubraving@fb.com>,
        <andriin@fb.com>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>
References: <20200203020220.117152-1-yaohongbo@huawei.com>
 <a29bf101-81b0-68ef-356c-dfdc9c53d899@fb.com>
From:   Yao HongBo <yaohongbo@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <f82e64c5-9299-b1a2-41b6-0f3630793d2b@huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Feb 2020 16:16:17 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a29bf101-81b0-68ef-356c-dfdc9c53d899@fb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 2/3/2020 2:20 PM, Yonghong Song wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/2/20 6:02 PM, Hongbo Yao wrote:
>> Fix sparse warning:
>> kernel/bpf/btf.c:4131:5: warning: symbol 'btf_check_func_type_match' was
>> not declared. Should it be static?
> 
> Yes, static is better since the function is only used in one file.
> 
> Please use the tag "[PATCH bpf-next]" instead of "[PATCH -next]".
> Since this is to fix a sparse warning, I think it should be okay
> to target bpf-next. Please resubmit after bpf-next reopens in
> about a week.

OK.

>>
>> Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Hongbo Yao <yaohongbo@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>   kernel/bpf/btf.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf.c b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
>> index 8c9d8f266bef..83d3d92023af 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
>> @@ -4144,7 +4144,7 @@ int btf_distill_func_proto(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
>>    * EFAULT - verifier bug
>>    * 0 - 99% match. The last 1% is validated by the verifier.
>>    */
>> -int btf_check_func_type_match(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
>> +static int btf_check_func_type_match(struct bpf_verifier_log *log,
>>                     struct btf *btf1, const struct btf_type *t1,
>>                     struct btf *btf2, const struct btf_type *t2)
> 
> Please also align
>   struct btf *btf1, const struct btf_type *t1,
>   struct btf *btf2, const struct btf_type *t2)
> properly after you added 'static' before the function declaration.

I'll fix it, thanks.

>>   {
>>
> 
> .
>