Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/6] bpf: add BPF_SOCK_OPS_TSTAMP_RCV_CB callback

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] Multi-line comments added in `bpf.h` violate BPF subsystem style rules.
--

commit 70849c3ed58c6a550a61d9e2bed8d76cf14bd58a
Author: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@gmail.com>

bpf: add BPF_SOCK_OPS_TSTAMP_RCV_CB callback

This commit adds the BPF_SOCK_OPS_TSTAMP_RCV_CB callback and a receive
tunnel function to allow the kernel to report both software and hardware
timestamps.

> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> index 1e09b5cd7a39e..113a2a72cbf45 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> @@ -7169,6 +7169,11 @@ enum {
>  					 * sendmsg timestamp with corresponding
>  					 * tskey.
>  					 */
> +	BPF_SOCK_OPS_TSTAMP_RCV_CB,	/* Called in tcp_recvmsg() to record
> +					 * sw/hw timestamp of the last skb
> +					 * after receiving all the data when
> +					 * SK_BPF_CB_RX_TIMESTAMPING is on.
> +					 */

[Severity: Low]
This isn't a bug, but does this multi-line comment follow the preferred
subsystem style? Should the opening /* be placed on its own line?

[ ... ]

> diff --git a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> index 677be9a473476..483ff4497d512 100644
> --- a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> +++ b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> @@ -7168,6 +7168,11 @@ enum {
>  					 * sendmsg timestamp with corresponding
>  					 * tskey.
>  					 */
> +	BPF_SOCK_OPS_TSTAMP_RCV_CB,	/* Called in tcp_recvmsg() to record
> +					 * sw/hw timestamp of the last skb
> +					 * after receiving all the data when
> +					 * SK_BPF_CB_RX_TIMESTAMPING is on.
> +					 */

[Severity: Low]
This isn't a bug, but the same multi-line comment style observation applies
here. Should the opening /* be placed on its own line?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260521135244.40869-1-kerneljasonxing@gmail.com?part=4