Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/4] libbpf: Add bpf_program__add_flags() and bpf_program__clear_flags()

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] The newly introduced multi-line comment in `libbpf.h` does not follow the required BPF subsystem comment style.
--

commit 70c14f22413bc6ac7381ed8252533a749bda07d7
Author: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com>

libbpf: Add bpf_program__add_flags() and bpf_program__clear_flags()

This commit introduces two convenience helpers, bpf_program__add_flags() and
bpf_program__clear_flags(), which wrap bpf_program__set_flags(). They allow
modifying BPF program flags without overwriting existing ones.

[ ... ]

> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
> index b965ad5715403..3932bf9cb4903 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
> @@ -1011,6 +1011,12 @@ bpf_program__set_expected_attach_type(struct bpf_program *prog,
>  LIBBPF_API __u32 bpf_program__flags(const struct bpf_program *prog);
>  LIBBPF_API int bpf_program__set_flags(struct bpf_program *prog, __u32 flags);
>  
> +/* Convenience helpers to non-destructively add or clear the specified flags
> + * instead of clobbering them as bpf_program__set_flags() does.
> + */

[Severity: Low]
This isn't a bug, but does this multi-line comment format violate the BPF
subsystem coding style?

The BPF guidelines explicitly require multi-line comments to have the opening
/* on its own line, rather than having text on the same line as the opening.

> +LIBBPF_API int bpf_program__add_flags(struct bpf_program *prog, __u32 flags);
> +LIBBPF_API int bpf_program__clear_flags(struct bpf_program *prog, __u32 flags);

[ ... ]

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260910183222.307208-1-toke@redhat.com?part=1