On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 3:35 PM <valdis.kletni...@vt.edu> wrote: > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 09:18:45 -0800, Song Liu said: > > On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 8:43 PM <valdis.kletni...@vt.edu> 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.
Yeah, I also felt this might be overkill while asking initially. Acked-by: Song Liu <songliubrav...@fb.com>
