> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h
> @@ -454,6 +454,11 @@ struct bpf_link_create_opts {
> __u64 expected_revision;
> } cgroup;
> + struct {
> + __u32 *ids;
> + __u64 *cookies;
> + __u32 cnt;
> + } tracing_multi;
> };
Should the ids and cookies pointers be const-qualified here?
Every other multi-attach member in this union uses const for
its pointer fields, for example in kprobe_multi:
const char **syms;
const unsigned long *addrs;
const __u64 *cookies;
and in uprobe_multi:
const unsigned long *offsets;
const unsigned long *ref_ctr_offsets;
const __u64 *cookies;
These arrays are input-only (passed straight through to the
kernel via ptr_to_u64), so marking them const would be
consistent with the existing convention and would avoid
compiler warnings for callers passing const arrays.
---
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/23133791558
