On 1/28/26 10:26 AM, [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.
Ihor, I think the script parsing review-inline.txt chopped off the
part of the review where AI was complaining about the commit message?
commit f636685cc0b05bb758bb58729cc65dde79ac7108
Author: Leon Hwang <[email protected]>
bpf: Add bpf_arch_supports_fsession()
This commit adds architecture-specific gating for fsession programs,
returning -EOPNOTSUPP when the architecture does not implement fsession
support, instead of failing at runtime with -EFAULT.
> bpf: Add bpf_arch_supports_fsession()
The commit subject references bpf_arch_supports_fsession(), but the
actual function implemented is named bpf_jit_supports_fsession().
> Introduce bpf_arch_supports_fsession() to explicitly gate fsession usage
> based on architecture support.
Similarly, the commit body describes bpf_arch_supports_fsession(), while
the code uses bpf_jit_supports_fsession().
Should the commit message be updated to match the actual function name?
The function follows the existing bpf_jit_supports_*() naming convention
used by similar functions in the codebase.
-chris
