On 2026/10/17 23:03, [email protected] wrote: >> libbpf: Add bpf_link_create_log API > > TL;DR: Commit message only: the rationale for adding bpf_link_create_log() > instead of extending bpf_link_create_opts is vague ("it seems not proper") and > one sentence is self-contradictory; no code issues raised. > >> libbpf: Add bpf_link_create_log API >> >> Add a new API to accept the log opts, instead of extending the existing >> struct bpf_link_create_opts. >> >> In the struct bpf_link_create_opts, it seems not proper to append a >> tailing common log field prior to those variant length fields. >> >> Add a new API to avoid breaking the struct bpf_link_create_opts. >> >> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <[email protected]> > > This isn't a bug, but could the changelog say more concretely why a log > field cannot be added to struct bpf_link_create_opts (for example, the > trailing union growing for future link types), rather than "it seems not > proper"? > > The sentence "append a tailing common log field prior to those variant > length fields" also reads as self-contradictory, since "append" and "prior > to" point in opposite directions.
Will describe my justification with a concrete case in the next revision. Thanks, Leon > > > --- > 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/39042048581
