From: Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, eddyz87@gmail.com,
memxor@gmail.com, yonghong.song@linux.dev, martin.lau@kernel.org,
mason@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] bpf: Reject unwind_goto and unwind_exit in offloaded progs
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2026 19:23:25 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1ffe4765-ce81-4ff6-a483-e978dce5b234@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DMA2VC8SJY0S.8O3PIVXWV2J4@gmail.com>
On 10/20/26 5:08 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2026 at 04:43 PM bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org <bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org> wrote:
>> TL;DR: Code looks correct; only the commit message is questioned: "nobody
>> looks at jit_required" holds just with CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON=y, otherwise
>> offloaded progs were already rejected, so the changelog should name the
>> configuration.
>
> It's a nit in the commit log. Not worth a respin.
It is a nit, and this particular one might be fine to ignore.
> humans and bots MUST not report nits.
But I don't think we should remove "nit" passes from the review bots.
If people don't read commit messages carefully, and review bots don't
either, then we are increasing the amount of sloppy or outright
incorrect claims in the git history. Even if only bots read the git
history, this is not good. Over time it will increase confusion and
ultimately burn human hours and tokens unnecessarily.
And also what's the cost of a respin with a bot fixing a bot-detected
nit? 2 minutes? 5?
I get the move fast attitude, but we could at least let the bots do
their jobs assuming we trust them (which we de facto do).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-21 2:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-20 23:19 [PATCH bpf-next 0/3] bpf: Fixes for unwind_goto and unwind_exit Alexei Starovoitov
2026-10-20 23:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/3] bpf: Make unwind_exit of an exception callback exit in JITs Alexei Starovoitov
2026-10-20 23:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] bpf: Reject unwind_goto and unwind_exit in offloaded progs Alexei Starovoitov
2026-10-20 23:43 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-10-21 0:08 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-10-21 2:23 ` Ihor Solodrai [this message]
2026-10-20 23:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/3] selftests/bpf: Test unwind_exit of an exception callback Alexei Starovoitov
2026-10-21 0:10 ` [PATCH bpf-next 0/3] bpf: Fixes for unwind_goto and unwind_exit patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1ffe4765-ce81-4ff6-a483-e978dce5b234@linux.dev \
--to=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
--cc=mason@kernel.org \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox