Re: [PATCHv2 bpf-next 5/5] selftests/bpf: Add usdt trigger bench

[bot+bpf-ci]

> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/trigger_bench.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/trigger_bench.c
> index 4ea0422d1042..f631706bbdc9 100644

[ ... ]

> @@ -180,3 +181,10 @@ int bench_trigger_rawtp(void *ctx)
>  	handle(ctx);
>  	return 0;
>  }
> +
> +SEC("usdt")
> +int bench_trigger_usdt(void *ctx)

Should this use SEC("?usdt") instead of SEC("usdt")?

All other programs in this file use the '?' prefix to disable autoload by
default:

    SEC("?uprobe")
    SEC("?uprobe.multi")
    SEC("?raw_tp")
    SEC("?kprobe/bpf_get_numa_node_id")
    ...

Without the '?' prefix, bench_trigger_usdt will be auto-loaded whenever the
trigger_bench skeleton is loaded by any benchmark using setup_ctx()/load_ctx(),
adding unnecessary overhead to unrelated benchmarks.

> +{
> +	inc_counter();
> +	return 0;
> +}


---
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/21867569087

AI-authorship-score: low
AI-authorship-explanation: The commit exhibits natural kernel developer style with real benchmark data, informal comments, and follows existing codebase patterns with minor inconsistencies typical of human development.
issues-found: 1
issue-severity-score: low
issue-severity-explanation: Minor pattern inconsistency in test code where SEC("usdt") should use SEC("?usdt") to match the established convention for disabling autoload by default.