Re: [PATCH 2/2] bpf, doc: Improve MOV* documentation ...

[Vineet Gupta <vineet.gupta@linux.dev>]

On 4/1/26 10:59 AM, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org wrote:
>> diff --git a/Documentation/bpf/standardization/instruction-set.rst b/Documentation/bpf/standardization/instruction-set.rst
>> index fd688c5d3f04d..ac61d3be7af21 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/bpf/standardization/instruction-set.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/bpf/standardization/instruction-set.rst
> [ ... ]
>
>> +``{MOV, X, ALU64}`` means::
>> +
>> +  dst = src  (e.g. r1 = r2)
>> +
>> +``{MOV, K, ALU64}`` means::
>> +
>> +  dst = (s64)imm
>> +
>> +e.g. r1 = -4; r5 = 9282009
>> +
>> +``{MOV, X, ALU}`` has zero extension semantics (upper 32 bits are zeroed)::
>> +
>> +  dst = (u32)src
>> +
>> +e.g. w5 = w9
> Should the example for {MOV, X, ALU64} be placed outside the code block,
> matching the style used by {MOV, K, ALU64} and {MOV, X, ALU} just below?
>
> As written, the RST literal block renders "(e.g. r1 = r2)" as part of
> the formal pseudo-C definition.  The other two entries place their
> examples as separate paragraph text after the code block, which keeps
> the spec definition distinct from the illustrative examples.
>
> Something like this would be consistent:
>
>    ``{MOV, X, ALU64}`` means::
>
>      dst = src
>
>    e.g. r1 = r2

OK.

Thx,
-Vineet
>
>
> ---
> AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
> See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md
>
> CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/23861455083