[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20171218174707.15430-1-colin.king@canonical.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 17:47:07 +0000
From: Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH][next] bpf: make function skip_callee static and return NULL rather than 0
From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
Function skip_callee is local to the source and does not need to
be in global scope, so make it static. Also return NULL rather than 0.
Cleans up two sparse warnings:
symbol 'skip_callee' was not declared. Should it be static?
Using plain integer as NULL pointer
Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
---
kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
index 2f6f09cd1925..52689f2abbcb 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
@@ -823,6 +823,7 @@ static int check_subprogs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
return 0;
}
+static
struct bpf_verifier_state *skip_callee(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
const struct bpf_verifier_state *state,
struct bpf_verifier_state *parent,
@@ -867,7 +868,7 @@ struct bpf_verifier_state *skip_callee(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
verbose(env, "verifier bug regno %d tmp %p\n", regno, tmp);
verbose(env, "regno %d parent frame %d current frame %d\n",
regno, parent->curframe, state->curframe);
- return 0;
+ return NULL;
}
static int mark_reg_read(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
--
2.14.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists