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 E0A2A3BB693 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2026 12:32:53 +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=1786105982; cv=none; b=QRpuKAIRjs/Ur2Ro0WtT99kZHd6gT3RbBiI+RQZsYZAtqVONq4cYs8env9B3zauH0LKK6gUZ3ehpyt+La4hkZZyijjc/deTSWTjidglv0tRbI1Dbcbtqh4MgGTGZIk1/zsIQtT4TGrcr4XCKIO+MTQx+yFWhE/HwBpB4xh2mGPc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786105982; c=relaxed/simple; bh=OJsdYb95cHmwJtEl4oQv6N3k43WLEK6obrGHxo8zA1I=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=ofqO5LZXH8NMPbTJccWVo+SzItUxvnwbXxebGwsWZ7RsM2bbSh3hvysgtjBLHJ9zqoI8lhq7dPBe8dQC5HjOBKNwLT489HQazgTSAZxXrz7i6U33ypDm5G57PaGzriNXjo9d13rcUDzJuUD6yQajWtPtSZpciuPofOyO+B9pbeA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=f+yAGmf2; 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="f+yAGmf2" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A942A1F000E9; Fri, 7 Aug 2026 12:32:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1786105966; bh=VGYjk/GU3yZns5VM52mHXkxN3Y/OLzV0b1QFnhJiH4g=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=f+yAGmf2kTjjVLSA7csHnMISt+wmM50uTkX5TNhdV+FUyhoTw4I9Ae8tq6gp66W7W /4fSjCpKcYv6bVdJn+ILugU/ghmsZ/y63hUf0+TS1byR/cSkkeSuCU70IW8OaZMp02 zqxALtf8+szmTTuFTKrjYSB3exPftfDaHG2UQvlS/4uWnwGNWUGHwO5sfSno8zMigR IuaCokRmiGc19pm8Z250vnFnRb8JqvjOWqWToXMwJ40+q/0lzo1oc52Y+AcNYMRxVq GEhlm1d4n97wb5J/US/SItCKyKuT3y5eEr7Rfb47oKiNjHz9l+Ljj3Re0e0d+o9gbo X8gb2bq3m/t7g== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 6/8] selftests/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: <8fe0b35438a04876bee2dbcdc94e28bd919dfc40.1786099877.git.skb99@linux.ibm.com> References: <8fe0b35438a04876bee2dbcdc94e28bd919dfc40.1786099877.git.skb99@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2026 12:32:46 +0000 Message-Id: <20260807123246.A942A1F000E9@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] Multi-line comment in the BPF subsystem does not follow the require= d style. -- --- Patch [6]: [PATCH v11 6/8] selftests/bpf: Add tailcall verifier selftes= t for powerpc64 --- commit db11673742dde393ab8f7429a8221e1b2ec5a904 Author: Abhishek Dubey selftests/bpf: Add tailcall verifier selftest for powerpc64 This commit adds a BPF verifier tailcall JIT testcase for powerpc64 to the selftests suite. It introduces the expected JIT instruction sequences for tail calls on the architecture. > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_tailcall_jit.c b/= tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_tailcall_jit.c > index 48fa34d2959f4..182302ff1db07 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_tailcall_jit.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_tailcall_jit.c > @@ -91,6 +91,81 @@ __jited(" popq %rax") [ ... ] > +__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] Does this multi-line comment follow the modern BPF subsystem style rules? The BPF subsystem style requires the opening /* of a multi-line comment to be on its own line, rather than having text on the same line. Should the comment start with a standalone /* to match the expected format? [ ... ] --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/cover.1786099877.gi= t.skb99@linux.ibm.com?part=3D6