On 2026/1/28 23:26, [email protected] wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>> index 5a075e06cf..070ba80e39 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>> @@ -4112,3 +4112,8 @@ bool bpf_jit_supports_timed_may_goto(void)
>> {
>> return true;
>> }
>> +
>> +bool bpf_jit_supports_fsession(void)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> This is the actual function name in the code.
>
There is no issue here.
bpf_jit_supports_fsession() follows the same pattern as other
bpf_jit_supports_*() helpers: it is declared in filter.h, provided as a
__weak default implementation in core.c, and overridden by individual
JIT backends as needed.
Thanks,
Leon
>> +{
>> + return true;
>> +}
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
>> index e0b8a8a5aa..3b1eb632bf 100644
>> --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
>> @@ -3142,6 +3142,11 @@ bool __weak bpf_jit_supports_insn(struct bpf_insn
>> *insn, bool in_arena)
>> return false;
>> }
>> +
>> +bool __weak bpf_jit_supports_fsession(void)
>> +{
>> + return false;
>> +}
>
>
> ---
> AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
> See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md
>
> CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/21443677441
>
> AI-authorship-score: low
> AI-authorship-explanation: The naming inconsistency between commit message
> and code suggests a human renaming the function during development without
> updating the commit message, not AI-generated content.
> issues-found: 1
> issue-severity-score: low
> issue-severity-explanation: Documentation-only issue - commit message
> function name does not match actual code, which may confuse future code
> archaeology but has no runtime impact.
