On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 01:23:26PM -0800, Yonghong Song wrote:
> This patch set added name checking for PTR, ARRAY, VOLATILE, TYPEDEF,
> CONST, RESTRICT, STRUCT, UNION, ENUM and FWD types. Such a strict
> name checking makes BTF more sound in the kernel and future
> BTF-to-header-file converesion ([1]) less fragile.
>
> Patch #1 implemented btf_name_valid_identifier() for name checking
> which will be used in Patch #2.
> Patch #2 checked name validity for the above mentioned types.
> Patch #3 fixed two existing test_btf unit tests exposed by the strict
> name checking.
> Patch #4 added additional test cases.
>
> This patch set is against bpf tree.
>
> Patch #1 has been implemented in bpf-next commit
> Commit 2667a2626f4d ("bpf: btf: Add BTF_KIND_FUNC
> and BTF_KIND_FUNC_PROTO"), so there is no need to apply this
> patch to bpf-next. In case this patch is applied to bpf-next,
> there will be a minor conflict like
> diff --cc kernel/bpf/btf.c
> index a09b2f94ab25,93c233ab2db6..000000000000
> --- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> @@@ -474,7 -451,7 +474,11 @@@ static bool btf_name_valid_identifier(c
> return !*src;
> }
>
> ++<<<<<<< HEAD
> +const char *btf_name_by_offset(const struct btf *btf, u32 offset)
> ++=======
> + static const char *btf_name_by_offset(const struct btf *btf, u32 offset)
> ++>>>>>>> fa9566b0847d... bpf: btf: implement btf_name_valid_identifier()
> {
> if (!offset)
> return "(anon)";
> Just resolve the conflict by taking the "const char ..." line.
>
> Patches #2, #3 and #4 can be applied to bpf-next without conflict.
>
> [1]: http://vger.kernel.org/lpc-bpf2018.html#session-2
Applied to bpf tree. Thanks!
