[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <10c877995f2396fe97b8dcf36a3f8a196a7367e412e2f7de6bee497f135082ee@mail.kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2026 07:37:47 +0000 (UTC)
From: bot+bpf-ci@...nel.org
To: ameryhung@...il.com,bpf@...r.kernel.org
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org,alexei.starovoitov@...il.com,andrii@...nel.org,daniel@...earbox.net,memxor@...il.com,martin.lau@...nel.org,kpsingh@...nel.org,yonghong.song@...ux.dev,song@...nel.org,haoluo@...gle.com,ameryhung@...il.com,kernel-team@...a.com,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: [PATCH bpf-next v6 02/17] bpf: Convert bpf_selem_unlink_map to failable
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
> index 91b28f4e3..5f7869078 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_local_storage.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -347,25 +342,28 @@ void bpf_selem_link_storage_nolock(struct bpf_local_storage *local_storage,
> hlist_add_head_rcu(&selem->snode, &local_storage->list);
> }
>
> -static void bpf_selem_unlink_map(struct bpf_local_storage_elem *selem)
> +/* Only called in common paths */
> +static int bpf_selem_unlink_map(struct bpf_local_storage_elem *selem)
> {
The comment says "Only called in common paths", but bpf_selem_unlink_map()
is also called from bpf_local_storage_destroy() which the commit message
explicitly identifies as NOT a common path:
bpf_local_storage_destroy()
bpf_selem_unlink_map(selem); <-- not a "common path"
The commit message states: "Remove the selem_linked_to_map_lockless() check
as an selem in the common paths (not bpf_local_storage_map_free() or
bpf_local_storage_destroy())..."
Should this comment be removed or rephrased? I note that later in the series
(commit 6327eea8e) bpf_local_storage_destroy() is rewritten to no longer call
bpf_selem_unlink_map() directly, making the comment accurate at that point.
---
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/21702523104
AI-authorship-score: low
AI-authorship-explanation: The commit demonstrates deep kernel subsystem knowledge, proper coding conventions, and detailed understanding of locking requirements typical of experienced kernel developers.
issues-found: 1
issue-severity-score: low
issue-severity-explanation: Minor documentation issue where a comment incorrectly describes the function's callers; the code itself is functionally correct and the comment becomes accurate later in the patch series.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists