On 2026/10/17 22:53, [email protected] wrote: >> libbpf: Factor out __bpf_sys_fd helper > > TL;DR: Commit message nit only: subject and body call the new helper > __bpf_sys_fd, but the code names it __sys_bpf_fd. Should the message match? > >> libbpf: Factor out __bpf_sys_fd helper >> >> In the next patch, it also needs to use the extended BPF syscall to >> receive the reported log. >> >> So, factor out __bpf_sys_fd helper. >> >> No functional changes intended. >> >> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <[email protected]> > > This isn't a bug, but the subject and body name the helper __bpf_sys_fd, > while the function the patch adds is: > > +static int __sys_bpf_fd(union bpf_attr *attr, const size_t attr_sz, enum > bpf_cmd cmd, > + struct bpf_log_opts *log_opts) > > which follows the existing sys_bpf(), sys_bpf_fd() and sys_bpf_ext_fd() > naming. > > Should the subject and body say __sys_bpf_fd instead, so that searching the > log for the real function name finds this commit?
Will change __bpf_sys_fd to __sys_bpf_fd in the subject and body. 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
