From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A70CC282CD for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 23:35:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E132D2175B for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 23:35:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727227AbfA1XfZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2019 18:35:25 -0500 Received: from outbound.smtp.vt.edu ([198.82.183.121]:40382 "EHLO omr2.cc.vt.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726762AbfA1XfY (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2019 18:35:24 -0500 Received: from mr5.cc.vt.edu (junk.cc.ipv6.vt.edu [IPv6:2607:b400:92:9:0:9d:8fcb:4116]) by omr2.cc.vt.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x0SNZO5B000497 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 18:35:24 -0500 Received: from mail-qt1-f200.google.com (mail-qt1-f200.google.com [209.85.160.200]) by mr5.cc.vt.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id x0SNZJVE001814 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 18:35:24 -0500 Received: by mail-qt1-f200.google.com with SMTP id j5so22342485qtk.11 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 15:35:24 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:date:message-id; bh=UDEF/0d3Q0zZWlBm2eHzE6Yozy0EgOGcdjjKxY0nlWo=; b=qZThx8wusEXvlMltFW56MXtWwcHzxuBAteSaIfPZyrO/hq+7ZLVN+y4/qmky8jAgFD 84DFz9u4DHUTLBfYI8Bm99/jYSQ+dYQgg9g7uNZ4D4kJEFG3LMU7WOvP4swyu6lrRcZD rqmvnzVCWe1x44oOMeJHF171SiVyK9WYWIHDOf7rS0qH0TKbqoD2S9YD6a88WfhQFNeF rNojzdTBGARnwVMel9bKnSRsP+2poxQJhcfDSo6OI3Jd6lc8iiGMcZMLMHeoXM6+siFo Ud/d1caWipLa1qWgz+4c/mV2nomH7TlpsZjlcK9zhc0QMGBO8j7sMfTI54Z011+R+YHf tnWQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukeLTEHifBRsKewDSukvVeF7M4KbIcQPY4JZ17bLr0NdPO9XTUfe M+C9P9GLlr8aem8C8esEL1V5fOwaZoaySshTq6c5nmb9yZWthreDmkcvyKGRPOTusHz+uTB6tV2 7a0qLn0WzlEEuDF/VHf0ARNZ3OO7g0bRSeeY= X-Received: by 2002:aed:384a:: with SMTP id j68mr23272276qte.171.1548718519093; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 15:35:19 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN56jwhHp4RgzCY6/zt4lJuhZGnty+lgoGhDyVmUo1lOJvhW0C9W91Ha8t27P2MbPdlaJrBnVQ== X-Received: by 2002:aed:384a:: with SMTP id j68mr23272263qte.171.1548718518938; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 15:35:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu ([2601:5c0:c001:4341::936]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z18sm69894537qkz.96.2019.01.28.15.35.17 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 28 Jan 2019 15:35:17 -0800 (PST) From: valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu X-Google-Original-From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu X-Mailer: exmh version 2.9.0 11/07/2018 with nmh-1.7+dev To: Song Liu cc: Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Networking , open list Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf/core.c - silence warning messages In-reply-to: References: <31468.1548648675@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 18:35:16 -0500 Message-ID: <9865.1548718516@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 09:18:45 -0800, Song Liu said: > On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 8:43 PM wrote: > > The attached patch silences the warnings, because we *know* we're overwriting > > the default initializer. That leaves bpf/core.c with only 6 other warnings, > > which become more visible in comparison. > > My concern is that this will also mute the warning for other parts of > bpf/core.c. I checked and there weren't any warnings for other parts of the file. Also, this message doesn't even happen unless you build with W=1, which apparently happens so rarely that nobody else has submitted a patch. Is there a high likelihood that another overwrite of an initializer is going to be included in the source? > Maybe we should move bpf_opcode_in_insntable() to a separate file, and mute > warning for that file? Seems to be overkill - the intent of this patch was mostly to make the *other* warnings issued with W=1 more noticable.