[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <0044b4c0aa82681725d87d242bc1ce63f5ee3cdd330f0262b042a334688f03e5@mail.kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2026 09:28:38 +0000 (UTC)
From: bot+bpf-ci@...nel.org
To: hui.zhu@...ux.dev,akpm@...ux-foundation.org,hannes@...xchg.org,mhocko@...nel.org,roman.gushchin@...ux.dev,shakeel.butt@...ux.dev,muchun.song@...ux.dev,ast@...nel.org,daniel@...earbox.net,andrii@...nel.org,martin.lau@...ux.dev,eddyz87@...il.com,song@...nel.org,yonghong.song@...ux.dev,john.fastabend@...il.com,kpsingh@...nel.org,sdf@...ichev.me,haoluo@...gle.com,jolsa@...nel.org,shuah@...nel.org,peterz@...radead.org,ojeda@...nel.org,nathan@...nel.org,kees@...nel.org,tj@...nel.org,jeffxu@...omium.org,mkoutny@...e.com,kernel@...rr.cc,brauner@...nel.org,rdunlap@...radead.org,brgerst@...il.com,masahiroy@...nel.org,davem@...emloft.net,kuba@...nel.org,hawk@...nel.org,inwardvessel@...il.com,willemb@...gle.com,kerneljasonxing@...il.com,paul.chaignon@...il.com,a.s.protopopov@...il.com,ameryhung@...il.com,chenridong@...weicloud.com,lance.yang@...ux.dev,jiayuan.chen@...ux.dev,linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,linux-mm@...ck.org,cgroups@...r.kernel.org,bpf@...r.kernel.org,netdev@...r.kernel.org,linu
x-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Cc: zhuhui@...inos.cn,geliang@...nel.org,ast@...nel.org,andrii@...nel.org,daniel@...earbox.net,martin.lau@...nel.org,eddyz87@...il.com,yonghong.song@...ux.dev,clm@...a.com,ihor.solodrai@...ux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next v6 07/12] libbpf: Support passing user-defined flags for struct_ops
> The `bpf_struct_ops_opts` struct is extended with a `flags` member,
> which is then passed to the `bpf_link_create` syscall within
> `bpf_map__attach_struct_ops_opts`.
The commit message states the struct is "extended with a `flags` member", but
the flags field already exists in bpf_struct_ops_opts. It was added in commit
a09c73b18 ("libbpf: introduce bpf_map__attach_struct_ops_opts()"):
struct bpf_struct_ops_opts {
size_t sz;
__u32 flags;
__u32 relative_fd;
__u64 expected_revision;
size_t :0;
};
This patch adds code to USE the existing flags field, not extend the struct.
Would a message like "Pass the existing flags field from bpf_struct_ops_opts
to bpf_link_create" be more accurate?
---
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/21665371660
AI-authorship-score: medium
AI-authorship-explanation: The commit message contains a factual inaccuracy about extending the struct when the field already existed, which could indicate AI-generated text that didn't fully analyze the prior commit in the series.
issues-found: 1
issue-severity-score: low
issue-severity-explanation: The only issue is an inaccurate commit message that claims to extend a struct with a field that already exists; this is a documentation issue, not a code bug.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists