Merge branch 'btf-check-name'

Yonghong Song says:

====================
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
====================

Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>

0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions