On 1/28/26 10:49 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 9:34 AM Ihor Solodrai <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 1/28/26 7:35 AM, Chris Mason wrote: >>> >>> >>> 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? >> >> This is the email body pre-processing in KPD, yes. >> >> At some point we decided to remove the commit message before sending >> an email, but now that AI reviews the messages too, I think we should >> just send the generated review-inline.txt as is. >> >> Alexei, wdyt? > > I think KPD is only supposed to trim the header until 'diff ..' line. > In this case there is no 'diff', so I'm not sure why it trimmed so much.
There is. Here is the PR comment with the review: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/pull/10868#issuecomment-3811930805 KPD trimmed everything before the first "> diff" occurrence, as expected. I'll try to fix this up in KPD. We should probably search for the first line starting with "> " (a quote start) to trim the header correctly. Alternatively, AI can be prompted to avoid generating the header in review-inline.txt, but that's probably less reliable. And maybe it is useful for local runs, idk. > > commit sha... > Author: ... > > are useless in email reply, so we should still trim them.
