From: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org
To: hui.zhu@linux.dev, akpm@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
mhocko@kernel.org, roman.gushchin@linux.dev,
shakeel.butt@linux.dev, muchun.song@linux.dev, ast@kernel.org,
daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev,
eddyz87@gmail.com, song@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev,
john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@fomichev.me,
haoluo@google.com, jolsa@kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org,
peterz@infradead.org, ojeda@kernel.org, nathan@kernel.org,
kees@kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, jeffxu@chromium.org,
mkoutny@suse.com, kernel@jfarr.cc, brauner@kernel.org,
rdunlap@infradead.org, brgerst@gmail.com, masahiroy@kernel.org,
davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, hawk@kernel.org,
inwardvessel@gmail.com, willemb@google.com,
kerneljasonxing@gmail.com, paul.chaignon@gmail.com,
a.s.protopopov@gmail.com, ameryhung@gmail.com,
chenridong@huaweicloud.com, lance.yang@linux.dev,
jiayuan.chen@linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linu@kvack.org,
x-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Cc: zhuhui@kylinos.cn,geliang@kernel.org,ast@kernel.org,andrii@kernel.org,daniel@iogearbox.net,martin.lau@kernel.org,eddyz87@gmail.com,yonghong.song@linux.dev,clm@meta.com,ihor.solodrai@linux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next v6 07/12] libbpf: Support passing user-defined flags for struct_ops
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2026 09:28:38 +0000 (UTC) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0044b4c0aa82681725d87d242bc1ce63f5ee3cdd330f0262b042a334688f03e5@mail.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ba2cd1640447097cece1560dd7183bc3db39c57a.1770194182.git.zhuhui@kylinos.cn>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1479 bytes --]
> The `bpf_struct_ops_opts` struct is extended with a `flags` member,
> which is then passed to the `bpf_link_create` syscall within
> `bpf_map__attach_struct_ops_opts`.
The commit message states the struct is "extended with a `flags` member", but
the flags field already exists in bpf_struct_ops_opts. It was added in commit
a09c73b18 ("libbpf: introduce bpf_map__attach_struct_ops_opts()"):
struct bpf_struct_ops_opts {
size_t sz;
__u32 flags;
__u32 relative_fd;
__u64 expected_revision;
size_t :0;
};
This patch adds code to USE the existing flags field, not extend the struct.
Would a message like "Pass the existing flags field from bpf_struct_ops_opts
to bpf_link_create" be more accurate?
---
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/21665371660
AI-authorship-score: medium
AI-authorship-explanation: The commit message contains a factual inaccuracy about extending the struct when the field already existed, which could indicate AI-generated text that didn't fully analyze the prior commit in the series.
issues-found: 1
issue-severity-score: low
issue-severity-explanation: The only issue is an inaccurate commit message that claims to extend a struct with a field that already exists; this is a documentation issue, not a code bug.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-04 9:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-02-04 8:56 [RFC PATCH bpf-next v6 00/12] mm: memcontrol: Add BPF hooks for memory controller Hui Zhu
2026-02-04 8:56 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next v6 01/12] bpf: move bpf_struct_ops_link into bpf.h Hui Zhu
2026-02-04 8:56 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next v6 02/12] bpf: initial support for attaching struct ops to cgroups Hui Zhu
2026-02-04 8:56 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next v6 03/12] bpf: mark struct oom_control's memcg field as TRUSTED_OR_NULL Hui Zhu
2026-02-04 8:56 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next v6 04/12] mm: define mem_cgroup_get_from_ino() outside of CONFIG_SHRINKER_DEBUG Hui Zhu
2026-02-04 8:56 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next v6 05/12] libbpf: introduce bpf_map__attach_struct_ops_opts() Hui Zhu
2026-02-04 9:28 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-02-04 8:56 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next v6 06/12] bpf: Pass flags in bpf_link_create for struct_ops Hui Zhu
2026-02-04 9:28 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-02-04 9:00 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next v6 07/12] libbpf: Support passing user-defined flags " Hui Zhu
2026-02-04 9:28 ` bot+bpf-ci [this message]
2026-02-04 9:00 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next v6 08/12] mm: memcontrol: Add BPF struct_ops for memory controller Hui Zhu
2026-02-04 9:00 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next v6 09/12] selftests/bpf: Add tests for memcg_bpf_ops Hui Zhu
2026-02-04 9:00 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next v6 10/12] mm/bpf: Add BPF_F_ALLOW_OVERRIDE support " Hui Zhu
2026-02-04 9:00 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next v6 11/12] selftests/bpf: Add test for memcg_bpf_ops hierarchies Hui Zhu
2026-02-04 9:28 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-02-04 9:00 ` [RFC PATCH bpf-next v6 12/12] samples/bpf: Add memcg priority control example Hui Zhu
2026-02-04 9:28 ` bot+bpf-ci
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0044b4c0aa82681725d87d242bc1ce63f5ee3cdd330f0262b042a334688f03e5@mail.kernel.org \
--to=bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org \
--cc=a.s.protopopov@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ameryhung@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=brgerst@gmail.com \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=chenridong@huaweicloud.com \
--cc=clm@meta.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=geliang@kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=hawk@kernel.org \
--cc=hui.zhu@linux.dev \
--cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--cc=inwardvessel@gmail.com \
--cc=jeffxu@chromium.org \
--cc=jiayuan.chen@linux.dev \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kees@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel@jfarr.cc \
--cc=kerneljasonxing@gmail.com \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=lance.yang@linux.dev \
--cc=linu@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=masahiroy@kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=nathan@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ojeda@kernel.org \
--cc=paul.chaignon@gmail.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=willemb@google.com \
--cc=x-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
--cc=zhuhui@kylinos.cn \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox