Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Song Liu <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] bpf: remove set but not used variable 'dst_known' | Date | Sat, 18 Apr 2020 06:13:48 +0000 |
| |
> On Apr 17, 2020, at 6:37 PM, Mao Wenan <maowenan@huawei.com> wrote: > > Fixes gcc '-Wunused-but-set-variable' warning: > > kernel/bpf/verifier.c:5603:18: warning: variable ‘dst_known’ > set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable], delete this > variable. > > Signed-off-by: Mao Wenan <maowenan@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
With one nit below.
> --- > v2: remove fixes tag in commit log. > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 4 +--- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > index 04c6630cc18f..c9f50969a689 100644 > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > @@ -5600,7 +5600,7 @@ static int adjust_scalar_min_max_vals(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, > { > struct bpf_reg_state *regs = cur_regs(env); > u8 opcode = BPF_OP(insn->code); > - bool src_known, dst_known; > + bool src_known;
This is not a hard rule, but we prefer to keep variable definition in "reverse Christmas tree" order. Since we are on this function, let's reorder these definitions to something like:
u64 insn_bitness = (BPF_CLASS(insn->code) == BPF_ALU64) ? 64 : 32; struct bpf_reg_state *regs = cur_regs(env); u8 opcode = BPF_OP(insn->code); u32 dst = insn->dst_reg; s64 smin_val, smax_val; u64 umin_val, umax_val; bool src_known; int ret;
| |