On Wed Jul 15, 2026 at 11:32 AM EDT, Leon Hwang wrote: > There are many adjacent blank lines in the verifier that have accumulated > over time. > > Drop them for cleanup. > > No functional changes intended.
Reviewed-by: Emil Tsalapatis <[email protected]> What about the files we factored out of the verifier? E.g., backtrack.c also has the same issue. > > Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <[email protected]> > --- > kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 14 -------------- > 1 file changed, 14 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > index de816063ae63..e1244a721194 100644 > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c > @@ -634,7 +634,6 @@ static void __mark_dynptr_reg(struct bpf_reg_state *reg, > enum bpf_dynptr_type type, > bool first_slot, int id, int parent_id); > > - > static void mark_dynptr_stack_regs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, > struct bpf_reg_state *sreg1, > struct bpf_reg_state *sreg2, > @@ -1671,7 +1670,6 @@ static bool same_callsites(struct bpf_verifier_state > *a, struct bpf_verifier_sta > return true; > } > > - > void bpf_free_backedges(struct bpf_scc_visit *visit) > { > struct bpf_scc_backedge *backedge, *next; > @@ -2291,7 +2289,6 @@ static struct bpf_verifier_state *push_async_cb(struct > bpf_verifier_env *env, > return &elem->st; > } > > - > static int cmp_subprogs(const void *a, const void *b) > { > return ((struct bpf_subprog_info *)a)->start - > @@ -4044,7 +4041,6 @@ static int check_stack_read(struct bpf_verifier_env > *env, > return err; > } > > - > /* check_stack_write dispatches to check_stack_write_fixed_off or > * check_stack_write_var_off. > * > @@ -4840,7 +4836,6 @@ static int check_sock_access(struct bpf_verifier_env > *env, int insn_idx, > valid = false; > } > > - > if (valid) { > env->insn_aux_data[insn_idx].ctx_field_size = > info.ctx_field_size; > @@ -6683,7 +6678,6 @@ static int check_stack_range_initialized( > if (err) > return err; > > - > if (tnum_is_const(reg->var_off)) { > min_off = max_off = reg->var_off.value + off; > } else { > @@ -7404,7 +7398,6 @@ static bool is_iter_new_kfunc(struct bpf_call_arg_meta > *meta) > return meta->kfunc_flags & KF_ITER_NEW; > } > > - > static bool is_iter_destroy_kfunc(struct bpf_call_arg_meta *meta) > { > return meta->kfunc_flags & KF_ITER_DESTROY; > @@ -11539,7 +11532,6 @@ static int process_irq_flag(struct bpf_verifier_env > *env, struct bpf_reg_state * > return 0; > } > > - > static int ref_set_non_owning(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct > bpf_reg_state *reg) > { > struct btf_record *rec = reg_btf_record(reg); > @@ -16421,7 +16413,6 @@ static int check_ld_abs(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, > struct bpf_insn *insn) > return 0; > } > > - > static bool return_retval_range(struct bpf_verifier_env *env, struct > bpf_retval_range *range) > { > enum bpf_prog_type prog_type = resolve_prog_type(env->prog); > @@ -18363,8 +18354,6 @@ static void release_insn_arrays(struct > bpf_verifier_env *env) > bpf_insn_array_release(env->insn_array_maps[i]); > } > > - > - > /* The verifier does more data flow analysis than llvm and will not > * explore branches that are dead at run time. Malicious programs can > * have dead code too. Therefore replace all dead at-run-time code > @@ -18392,8 +18381,6 @@ static void sanitize_dead_code(struct > bpf_verifier_env *env) > } > } > > - > - > static void free_states(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) > { > struct bpf_verifier_state_list *sl; > @@ -18675,7 +18662,6 @@ static int do_check_main(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) > return ret; > } > > - > static void print_verification_stats(struct bpf_verifier_env *env) > { > /* Skip over hidden subprogs which are not verified. */
