On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 2:38 PM Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/linked_list_fail.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/linked_list_fail.c
> index 6438982b928b..35616b5c9b9e 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/linked_list_fail.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/linked_list_fail.c
> @@ -227,7 +227,7 @@ SEC("?tc")
> int obj_new_no_struct(void *ctx)
> {
>
> - bpf_obj_new(union { int data; unsigned udata; });
> + (void)bpf_obj_new(union { int data; unsigned udata; });
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ int new_null_ret(void *ctx)
> SEC("?tc")
> int obj_new_acq(void *ctx)
> {
> - bpf_obj_new(struct foo);
> + (void)bpf_obj_new(struct foo);
> return 0;
> }
>
> I think this probably will address your icecc issue.
Ilya,
does above fix it ?
If so we should probably do that and hold on __must_check,
since if we're getting pedantic __alloc_size__ is a better tag
than __must_check, but it will be even harder to get through pahole.
