Em Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 09:47:31AM -0800, Yonghong Song escreveu:
> @@ -698,13 +695,13 @@ struct btf_ext *btf_ext__new(__u8 *data, __u32 size,
> btf_print_fn_t err_log)
> if (!btf_ext)
> return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>
> - err = btf_ext_copy_func_info(btf_ext, data, size, err_log);
> + err = btf_ext_copy_func_info(btf_ext, data, size);
> if (err) {
> btf_ext__free(btf_ext);
One thing I noticed whas that the class + __ + method is not being
consistently followed, will this be dealt with in a followup patch, i.e.
to make this consistently use the format used in the
btf_ext__free(btf_ext) case?
> return ERR_PTR(err);
> }
>
> - err = btf_ext_copy_line_info(btf_ext, data, size, err_log);
> + err = btf_ext_copy_line_info(btf_ext, data, size);
> if (err) {
> btf_ext__free(btf_ext);
> return ERR_PTR(err);
- Arnaldo
