Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/3] bpf: Add bpf_arch_supports_fsession()

[Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>]

On 2026/1/28 23:35, Chris Mason wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/28/26 10:26 AM, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org wrote:
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>>> index 5a075e06cf..070ba80e39 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>>> @@ -4112,3 +4112,8 @@ bool bpf_jit_supports_timed_may_goto(void)
>>>  {
>>>  	return true;
>>>  }
>>> +
>>> +bool bpf_jit_supports_fsession(void)
>>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> This is the actual function name in the code.
> 
> Ihor, I think the script parsing review-inline.txt chopped off the
> part of the review where AI was complaining about the commit message?
> 
> commit f636685cc0b05bb758bb58729cc65dde79ac7108
> Author: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@linux.dev>
> 
> bpf: Add bpf_arch_supports_fsession()
> 
> This commit adds architecture-specific gating for fsession programs,
> returning -EOPNOTSUPP when the architecture does not implement fsession
> support, instead of failing at runtime with -EFAULT.
> 
>>     bpf: Add bpf_arch_supports_fsession()
> 
> The commit subject references bpf_arch_supports_fsession(), but the
> actual function implemented is named bpf_jit_supports_fsession().
> 
>>     Introduce bpf_arch_supports_fsession() to explicitly gate fsession usage
>>     based on architecture support.
> 
> Similarly, the commit body describes bpf_arch_supports_fsession(), while
> the code uses bpf_jit_supports_fsession().
> 
> Should the commit message be updated to match the actual function name?
> The function follows the existing bpf_jit_supports_*() naming convention
> used by similar functions in the codebase.
> 

Correct, in commit message, the function should be
bpf_jit_supports_fsession(), too.

Thanks,
Leon