2021-05-19 19:18:33

by Pu Lehui

Subject: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Make some symbols static

The sparse tool complains as follows:

kernel/bpf/syscall.c:4567:29: warning:
symbol 'bpf_sys_bpf_proto' was not declared. Should it be static?
kernel/bpf/syscall.c:4592:29: warning:
symbol 'bpf_sys_close_proto' was not declared. Should it be static?

This symbol is not used outside of syscall.c, so marks it static.

Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <[email protected]>
---
kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
index 2361d97e2c67..73d15bc62d8c 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
@@ -4564,7 +4564,7 @@ BPF_CALL_3(bpf_sys_bpf, int, cmd, void *, attr, u32, attr_size)
return __sys_bpf(cmd, KERNEL_BPFPTR(attr), attr_size);
}

-const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_sys_bpf_proto = {
+static const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_sys_bpf_proto = {
.func = bpf_sys_bpf,
.gpl_only = false,
.ret_type = RET_INTEGER,
@@ -4589,7 +4589,7 @@ BPF_CALL_1(bpf_sys_close, u32, fd)
return close_fd(fd);
}

-const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_sys_close_proto = {
+static const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_sys_close_proto = {
.func = bpf_sys_close,
.gpl_only = false,
.ret_type = RET_INTEGER,
--
2.17.1

2021-05-19 20:18:35

by Song Liu

Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Make some symbols static

> On May 18, 2021, at 11:41 PM, Pu Lehui <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The sparse tool complains as follows:
>
> kernel/bpf/syscall.c:4567:29: warning:
> symbol 'bpf_sys_bpf_proto' was not declared. Should it be static?
> kernel/bpf/syscall.c:4592:29: warning:
> symbol 'bpf_sys_close_proto' was not declared. Should it be static?
>
> This symbol is not used outside of syscall.c, so marks it static.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <[email protected]>

Acked-by: Song Liu <[email protected]>

> ---
> kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> index 2361d97e2c67..73d15bc62d8c 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> @@ -4564,7 +4564,7 @@ BPF_CALL_3(bpf_sys_bpf, int, cmd, void *, attr, u32, attr_size)
> return __sys_bpf(cmd, KERNEL_BPFPTR(attr), attr_size);
> }
>
> -const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_sys_bpf_proto = {
> +static const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_sys_bpf_proto = {
> .func = bpf_sys_bpf,
> .gpl_only = false,
> .ret_type = RET_INTEGER,
> @@ -4589,7 +4589,7 @@ BPF_CALL_1(bpf_sys_close, u32, fd)
> return close_fd(fd);
> }
>
> -const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_sys_close_proto = {
> +static const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_sys_close_proto = {
> .func = bpf_sys_close,
> .gpl_only = false,
> .ret_type = RET_INTEGER,
> --
> 2.17.1
>

2021-05-19 20:21:56

by patchwork-bot+netdevbpf

Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Make some symbols static

Hello:

This patch was applied to bpf/bpf-next.git (refs/heads/master):

On Wed, 19 May 2021 14:41:16 +0800 you wrote:
> The sparse tool complains as follows:
>
> kernel/bpf/syscall.c:4567:29: warning:
> symbol 'bpf_sys_bpf_proto' was not declared. Should it be static?
> kernel/bpf/syscall.c:4592:29: warning:
> symbol 'bpf_sys_close_proto' was not declared. Should it be static?
>
> [...]

Here is the summary with links:
- [bpf-next] bpf: Make some symbols static
https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/3a2daa724864

You are awesome, thank you!
--
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html