2019-08-16 10:11 UTC-0700 ~ Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 9:41 AM Quentin Monnet
> <quentin.mon...@netronome.com> wrote:
>>
>> 2019-08-15 22:08 UTC-0700 ~ Alexei Starovoitov
>> <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com>
>>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 7:32 AM Quentin Monnet
>>> <quentin.mon...@netronome.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Because the "__printf()" attributes were used only where the functions are
>>>> implemented, and not in header files, the checks have not been enforced on
>>>> all the calls to printf()-like functions, and a number of errors slipped in
>>>> bpftool over time.
>>>>
>>>> This set cleans up such errors, and then moves the "__printf()" attributes
>>>> to header files, so that the checks are performed at all locations.
>>>
>>> Applied. Thanks
>>>
>>
>> Thanks Alexei!
>>
>> I noticed the set was applied to the bpf-next tree, and not bpf. Just
>> checking if this is intentional?
>
> Yes. I don't see the _fix_ part in there.
> Looks like cleanup to me.
> I've also considered to push
> commit d34b044038bf ("tools: bpftool: close prog FD before exit on
> showing a single program")
> to bpf-next as well.
> That fd leak didn't feel that necessary to push to bpf tree
> and risk merge conflicts... but I pushed it to bpf at the end.
>
Ok, thanks for explaining. I'll consider submitting this kind of patches
to bpf-next instead in the future.
Quentin
