Re: [PATCH bpf-next v10 1/9] bpf: Drop duplicate blank lines in verifier

["Emil Tsalapatis" <emil@etsalapatis.com>]

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 <emil@etsalapatis.com>

What about the files we factored out of the verifier? E.g., backtrack.c
also has the same issue.

>
> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
> ---
>  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. */