Re: [PATCH 2/2] bpf: btf: remove a couple conditions

[Martin KaFai Lau]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 02:26:50PM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:31:36PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:21:17PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > > On 04/27/2018 09:39 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:55:46AM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> > > >> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:20:25AM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> > > >>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 05:04:59PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > >>>> We know "err" is zero so we can remove these and pull the code in one
> > > >>>> indent level.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >>> Thanks for the simplification!
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@xxxxxx>
> > > >> btw, it should be for bpf-next.  Please tag the subject with bpf-next when
> > > >> you respin. Thanks!
> > > 
> > > Dan, thanks a lot for your fixes! Please respin with addressing Martin's
> > > feedback when you get a chance.
> > > 
> > 
> > My understanding is that he'd prefer we just ignore the static checker
> > warning since it's a false positive.
> Right, I think patch 1 is not needed.  I would prefer to use a comment
> in those cases.
> 
> > Should I instead initialize the
> > size to zero or something just to silence it?
After another thought,  I think init size to zero is
fine which is less intrusive.

Thanks!
Martin

> > 
> > regards,
> > dan carpenter
> >