Re: [PATCH bpf-next] selftests/bpf: Fix const qualifier warning in fexit_bpf2bpf.c

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 5:40 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 5:16 PM Menglong Dong <menglong.dong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 2026/3/6 06:21 Varun R Mallya <varunrmallya@xxxxxxxxx> write:
> > > Building selftests with
> > > clang 23.0.0 (6fae863eba8a72cdd82f37e7111a46a70be525e0) triggers
> > > the following error:
> > >
> > >   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fexit_bpf2bpf.c:117:12:
> > >   error: assigning to 'char *' from 'const char *' discards qualifiers
> > >   [-Werror,-Wincompatible-pointer-types-discards-qualifiers]
> > >
> > > The variable `tgt_name` is declared as `char *`, but it stores the
> > > result of strstr(prog_name[i], "/"). Since `prog_name[i]` is a
> > > `const char *`, the returned pointer should also be treated as
> > > const-qualified.
> > >
> > > Update `tgt_name` to `const char *` to match the type of the underlying
> > > string and silence the compiler warning.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Varun R Mallya <varunrmallya@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fexit_bpf2bpf.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fexit_bpf2bpf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fexit_bpf2bpf.c
> > > index 23d933f1aec6..92c20803ea76 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fexit_bpf2bpf.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fexit_bpf2bpf.c
> > > @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ static void test_fexit_bpf2bpf_common(const char *obj_file,
> > >               struct bpf_link_info link_info;
> > >               struct bpf_program *pos;
> > >               const char *pos_sec_name;
> > > -             char *tgt_name;
> > > +             const char *tgt_name;
> >
> > I have been suffering from this build error too. So,
> >
> > Acked-by: Menglong Dong <menglong.dong@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Looks like this patch was lost. Pls resend.

Ohh. I see it now. Your reply got delivered before the patch itself
and the patch went to spam.
No need to resend.