Re: [PATCH bpf-next 4/6] libbpf: Factor out __bpf_sys_fd helper

[Leon Hwang]

On 2026/10/17 22:53, bot+bpf-ci@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> libbpf: Factor out __bpf_sys_fd helper
> 
> TL;DR: Commit message nit only: subject and body call the new helper
> __bpf_sys_fd, but the code names it __sys_bpf_fd. Should the message match?
> 
>> libbpf: Factor out __bpf_sys_fd helper
>>
>> In the next patch, it also needs to use the extended BPF syscall to
>> receive the reported log.
>>
>> So, factor out __bpf_sys_fd helper.
>>
>> No functional changes intended.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> This isn't a bug, but the subject and body name the helper __bpf_sys_fd,
> while the function the patch adds is:
> 
> +static int __sys_bpf_fd(union bpf_attr *attr, const size_t attr_sz, enum bpf_cmd cmd,
> +			struct bpf_log_opts *log_opts)
> 
> which follows the existing sys_bpf(), sys_bpf_fd() and sys_bpf_ext_fd()
> naming.
> 
> Should the subject and body say __sys_bpf_fd instead, so that searching the
> log for the real function name finds this commit?

Will change __bpf_sys_fd to __sys_bpf_fd in the subject and body.

Thanks,
Leon

> 
> 
> ---
> 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/39042048581