On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 08:22:39PM +0000, [email protected] wrote: > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h > > index 552bc5d9afbd..5f814e7101cf 100644 > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h > > @@ -1154,6 +1154,8 @@ enum bpf_attach_type { > > BPF_TRACE_KPROBE_SESSION, > > BPF_TRACE_UPROBE_SESSION, > > BPF_TRACE_FSESSION, > > + BPF_TRACE_FENTRY_MULTI, > > + BPF_TRACE_FEXIT_MULTI, > > __MAX_BPF_ATTACH_TYPE > > }; > > In the RFC version posted on February 4, 2026, Leon Hwang asked whether > BPF_TRACE_FSESSION_MULTI should be added alongside BPF_TRACE_FENTRY_MULTI > and BPF_TRACE_FEXIT_MULTI for consistency, since BPF_TRACE_FSESSION exists > and is handled similarly to FENTRY/FEXIT. > > Reference: > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/ > > You acknowledged this with "good catch, will add it" in the same thread: > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/aYM-jeV50WaVik1b@krava/ > > However, BPF_TRACE_FSESSION_MULTI was not added in any subsequent version > through v5. Should BPF_TRACE_FSESSION_MULTI be included here for API > consistency? >
I think the comment was to introduce the support for fsession, not to add it to this specific patch and BPF_TRACE_FSESSION_MULTI is introduced in: bpf: Add support for tracing_multi link session jirka > > --- > 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/24583317711
