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 6EAA81632E7 for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2026 06:14:05 +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=1785910446; cv=none; b=t6orb5QcZOk4DiOLwnkLrWilZail1h1w/dZiqs7yrOvJvkyqkGXWPDgOmZTb54VChHsNQukSgWiN1ptWg9FSlxS4paE4jiX931P7BYdx8pYWKc/7IWsgbpf7evJvBHENPeUWxxlJZlIrx2+sjUwAi7lrrKvyxVcHVBDD86YO7y0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785910446; c=relaxed/simple; bh=yVwntV7jYbm+BSKYMQSMY4OxViXD52S7q7TBluXbCdY=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=nABMboOeejP/tAaBgHE/HVQegqX4maKwrcBEqfotk/ol4I/E9QtGSfvjRaAs+KikUgGkwZRD2Hmr224U5uz4KV19LtdbEoEk3/3RTEQ+QOzhVRd6qmlCrJtpBPigeYwtSRWoUC0r9zdPHDX/Wle3PPhMxrOtj1nD2qzvJLsHHFM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=VInlMyPB; 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="VInlMyPB" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CCDC51F000E9; Wed, 5 Aug 2026 06:14:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1785910445; bh=PZCDCaTGoNVEuoxqz4/El3uV8AYzotS9rXqTToJiK4s=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=VInlMyPB7cUhlWTiYGMMk/eROnUvYdFixpvfE+M1M35uRdKLblcXDwb/C6ojy4Wsc QvC+DeRbxUA9oFBpQFMrjHJV7685NUzd8H8fMZ8KDg1k4TtTxkQrS3UVVUfPKzMz2s IwXRSjbuvCnqtyKucpGfw76zxWF89b626FakD4r4E+NH76JyGXMMzCjvzYjsGuJoDM hXv7eQau4U6SR9wC+f9+cNJoAOHUEtlDn1P77mSh+0n7LugtJTX+ydM7KIVtO9qhv4 kNw2a5fdA1Tn0AJqdNi2IuTzqq1y2MouMd6dev1uwhumMk71fWwkPo3zWL+aPnCQr9 X4DB/9vLMwzzw== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 6/8] selftest/bpf: Add tailcall verifier selftest for powerpc64 Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Saket Kumar Bhaskar" Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <83b869ecd74466a3fb08343c365494dcf144e3f6.1785906979.git.skb99@linux.ibm.com> References: <83b869ecd74466a3fb08343c365494dcf144e3f6.1785906979.git.skb99@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2026 06:14:04 +0000 Message-Id: <20260805061404.CCDC51F000E9@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 2 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Low] The patch introduces a multi-line comment that violates the BPF sub= system comment style. - [Low] Redundant and misleading repetition of `__jited("...")` annotations. -- --- Patch [6]: [PATCH v10 6/8] selftest/bpf: Add tailcall verifier selftest= for powerpc64 --- commit 93fe35d1a465f1c1dd05d30ed36bf46603bc5f71 Author: Abhishek Dubey selftest/bpf: Add tailcall verifier selftest for powerpc64 This commit adds a new BPF tailcall verifier JIT selftest for the powerpc64 architecture. It verifies the emitted JIT instructions for tail calls, handling differences between PCREL and non-PCREL kernels. > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_tailcall_jit.c b/= tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_tailcall_jit.c > index 48fa34d2959f4..7655742f627bc 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_tailcall_jit.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_tailcall_jit.c [ ... ] > @@ -91,6 +91,80 @@ __jited(" popq %rax") > __jited(" jmp {{.*}}") /* jump to tail call tgt */ > __jited("L0: leave") > __jited(" {{(retq|jmp 0x)}}") /* return or jump to rethunk */ > +__arch_powerpc64 > +/* program entry for main(), regular function prologue */ > +__jited(" nop") > +__jited("...") /* ld 2, 16(13) absent with CONF= IG_PPC_KERNEL_PCREL */ > +__jited(" li 9, 0") > +__jited(" std 9, -8(1)") > +__jited(" mflr 0") > +__jited(" std 0, 16(1)") > +__jited(" stdu 1, {{.*}}(1)") > +/* load address and call sub() via count register */ > +/* Address materialization differs between PCREL and non-PCREL kernels. > + * Skip the address generation sequence and verify only that the call > + * target is loaded into CTR before branching. > + */ [Severity: Low] This isn't a bug, but does this comment block follow the standard BPF subsystem comment style?=20 The subsystem guidelines require multi-line comments to have the opening characters on a dedicated line, like this: /* * Address materialization differs between PCREL and non-PCREL kernels. * Skip the address generation sequence... */ > +__jited("...") > +__jited("...") > +__jited("...") > +__jited("...") > +__jited("...") [Severity: Low] Are these consecutive string annotations redundant? When test_loader.c parses the "..." string via push_disasm_msg(), it merely sets the on_next_line flag to false. Repeating it multiple times does not force the verifier to skip exactly five instructions; it just sets the same boolean flag repeatedly.=20 Would a single annotation be sufficient to achieve the desired skip? > +__jited(" mtctr 12") > +__jited(" bctrl") > +__jited(" mr 8, 3") --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/cover.1785906979.gi= t.skb99@linux.ibm.com?part=3D6