Re: [PATCH bpf v4] selftests/bpf: allocate a larger timeout for connection

["Alexis Lothoré" <alexis.lothore@bootlin.com>]

On Thu Aug 13, 2026 at 12:33 PM CEST, bot+bpf-ci wrote:
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/network_helpers.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/network_helpers.c
>> index b82f572641b7..dd33bcdf75d7 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/network_helpers.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/network_helpers.c
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> @@ -305,13 +313,33 @@ int connect_to_addr(int type, const struct sockaddr_storage *addr, socklen_t add
>>  		return -1;
>>  	}
>>
>> +	/* Override timeout configuration with a larger value for the
>> +	 * connection
>> +	 */
>> +	if (settimeo(fd, connect_timeout_ms(opts))) {
>
> A subsystem pattern flags this as potentially concerning:
>
> Both multi-line comments added by this change start their text on the
> same line as the opening '/*'. The loaded BPF subsystem guide requires
> the opening '/*' to sit on its own line for files under
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/.
>
> The guide specifies: "Multi-line comments MUST have the opening /* on
> its own line, with the comment text starting on the next line."
>
> However, this file contains 8 pre-existing multi-line comments (at
> lines 455, 896, 1064, 1070, 1076, 1110, 1181, 1286) and every one puts
> text on the opening '/*' line; there are zero instances of the form the
> guide prescribes. Across tools/testing/selftests/bpf/ the ratio is
> roughly 1986 to 689 in favour of the style used here.
>
> Should these comments match the guide's requirement, or is the local
> convention the right choice for this file?

If the patch needs another revision, I'll use the opportunity to update
all the comments in the file before fixing this one.

Alexis

-- 
Alexis Lothoré, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com