From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AEDE3C3443 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2026 19:27:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782847641; cv=none; b=BwtvXfC/HWLUl2IwiBMfCHsXUWyW1RQSL9RaYejSsf8WC8vMIhHIdFTgspD1fLNuSMzZXCxCFVUj7mBQ6TroftzbOeW9ViiJ9sKkBlLf6TU4k2umf8pcEfxeNNcbILuilMSCWGkKZyc3dZIV3VMYmHIqk7B7sAoL/ONMtJwk0dM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782847641; c=relaxed/simple; bh=B6nAcbzf7qcwbZ275fkjBhRhWbFtTJdRl2zx6Y7ueR8=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=uTCahwN2pks+cvDrrCseOSu2RtWB/AuHDaQQUTzNKY3zmucxLw9Elqk9B8Kb+y/iHZKqjkc52893cHpTA1vjq7fuGeMB1GiD2bBP6Y0jIEoIFHlVhF5Lnmiw8WyrNfEBUsjvH05nFe+SL8/HlCyY82ErFixAubm76nxYqEar58c= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=DSAXut2x; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="DSAXut2x" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 832DB1F00A3A; Tue, 30 Jun 2026 19:27:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1782847640; bh=1Sv6JTvV+Qnq51faPVwH8GZDpljXVRSjMX9cWXFiZRA=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=DSAXut2x/z8RK+477ryUIOqT9YI2T5kf+utq/Eow6JbPFpILGdhPxYo+2kWIY/h9N 08ZW1+lIaOnzp1J2P4WCTNLS1lHjdDDMzyIf+t4ucmhVXxUt2d/gZBeEfC0ueUHRTE /zCSM28cWG7hXZwhqF1xkESrRciGzoDNeLutyhOu17nfp9sPLNJl3IHOcBpfvAQCSz q4GAhFYORgHYK/ce2yIjpM8XzActGwmnXCBf4ToumoZVkf2tsEKE8r/YDnxHvv8Vle RaYn4wBY0PomDQ7J1SB/f6xaeUETvkiLDoy49l8CC0l1qKys3Q3veaDjOifCw3VB8j Dfp9pvYOcpvlA== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next v1 7/7] selftests/bpf: cover bpf_xdp_metadata_rx_csum in xdp_metadata Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Vladimir Vdovin" Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260630191510.81402-8-deliran@verdict.gg> References: <20260630191510.81402-1-deliran@verdict.gg> <20260630191510.81402-8-deliran@verdict.gg> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2026 19:27:19 +0000 Message-Id: <20260630192719.832DB1F00A3A@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Low] The newly added multi-line comment in `verify_xsk_metadata` violate= s the BPF subsystem comment style guidelines. -- commit f8507da4f2875a0c3ae86814a72a21202665e4a5 Author: Vladimir Vdovin selftests/bpf: cover bpf_xdp_metadata_rx_csum in xdp_metadata This commit updates the xdp_metadata test to call bpf_xdp_metadata_rx_csum() and export its status to userspace. It then asserts the expected checksum status depending on whether the frame was injected via AF_XDP or sent through the stack. > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_metadata.c b/tool= s/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_metadata.c > index 5c31054ad4a4c..77f55696eb786 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_metadata.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_metadata.c > @@ -310,6 +310,16 @@ static int verify_xsk_metadata(struct xsk *xsk, bool= sent_from_af_xdp) > if (!ASSERT_NEQ(meta->rx_hash, 0, "rx_hash")) > return -1; > =20 > + /* veth surfaces the checksum verdict from skb->ip_summed. A packet > + * injected via AF_XDP carries no checksum context and is CHECKSUM_NONE, > + * while one sent through the stack is CHECKSUM_PARTIAL and reads back = as > + * verified. > + */ [Severity: Low] This isn't a bug, but does this comment format match the BPF subsystem multi-line comment style guidelines?=20 The BPF subsystem typically requires the opening /* to be on its own line, rather than sharing a line with the first row of text. [ ... ] --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260630191510.8140= 2-1-deliran@verdict.gg?part=3D7