Re: [PATCH -next] bpf: make btf_check_func_type_match() static

[Yonghong Song]

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.

> Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Hongbo Yao <yaohongbo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>   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.

>   {