diff options
| author | Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com> | 2023-10-13 23:44:22 +0300 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> | 2023-10-14 01:48:58 +0300 |
| commit | f10ca5da5bd71e5cefed7995e75a7c873ce3816e (patch) | |
| tree | 4c7ea8cb4ca5de5d5dab49142931fc55b0794e33 /kernel | |
| parent | ba8ea72388a192c10f1ee5f5a4a32332e7cced76 (diff) | |
| download | linux-f10ca5da5bd71e5cefed7995e75a7c873ce3816e.tar.xz | |
bpf: Don't explicitly emit BTF for struct btf_iter_num
Commit 6018e1f407cc ("bpf: implement numbers iterator") added the
BTF_TYPE_EMIT line that this patch is modifying. The struct btf_iter_num
doesn't exist, so only a forward declaration is emitted in BTF:
FWD 'btf_iter_num' fwd_kind=struct
That commit was probably hoping to ensure that struct bpf_iter_num is
emitted in vmlinux BTF. A previous version of this patch changed the
line to emit the correct type, but Yonghong confirmed that it would
definitely be emitted regardless in [0], so this patch simply removes
the line.
This isn't marked "Fixes" because the extraneous btf_iter_num FWD wasn't
causing any issues that I noticed, aside from mild confusion when I
looked through the code.
[0]: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/25d08207-43e6-36a8-5e0f-47a913d4cda5@linux.dev/
Signed-off-by: Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20231013204426.1074286-2-davemarchevsky@fb.com
Diffstat (limited to 'kernel')
| -rw-r--r-- | kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c | 2 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c index 96856f130cbf..833faa04461b 100644 --- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c +++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_iter.c @@ -793,8 +793,6 @@ __bpf_kfunc int bpf_iter_num_new(struct bpf_iter_num *it, int start, int end) BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct bpf_iter_num_kern) != sizeof(struct bpf_iter_num)); BUILD_BUG_ON(__alignof__(struct bpf_iter_num_kern) != __alignof__(struct bpf_iter_num)); - BTF_TYPE_EMIT(struct btf_iter_num); - /* start == end is legit, it's an empty range and we'll just get NULL * on first (and any subsequent) bpf_iter_num_next() call */ |