Re: [PATCH 2/2] bpf: report queue_index to xdp_rxq_info in cpumap and devmap

[bot+bpf-ci]

> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/cpumap.c b/kernel/bpf/cpumap.c
> --- a/kernel/bpf/cpumap.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/cpumap.c
> @@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ struct xdp_rxq_info rxq = {};
>
>  		rxq.dev = xdpf->dev_rx;
>  		rxq.mem.type = xdpf->mem_type;
> -		/* TODO: report queue_index to xdp_rxq_info */
> +		rxq.queue_index = xdpf->queue_index;

This approach of adding queue_index to struct xdp_frame was previously
submitted by Lorenzo Bianconi and discussed in January 2026 when
saiaunghlyanhtet posted the same change (v1 through v3).

Toke Hoiland-Jorgensen pointed out the earlier submission was rejected
because adding fields to xdp_frame ad-hoc was not the preferred
direction:

https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/87h5so1n49.fsf@xxxxxxx/

Jesper Dangaard Brouer (XDP maintainer) further noted that queue_index
is not the most interesting metadata to propagate through cpumap, and
pointed to his RX hints series as the proper mechanism for restoring
metadata lost during XDP redirect:

https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/dcad6dc7-b152-4511-becf-9e7721996f6a@xxxxxxxxxx/

Has the design concern about ad-hoc xdp_frame field additions been
resolved since January, or should this wait for the RX hints
infrastructure?

> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/devmap.c b/kernel/bpf/devmap.c

[ ... ]


---
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/22103049906

AI-authorship-score: medium
AI-authorship-explanation: Polished commit messages and cover letter with precise technical details for an apparent first-time contributor resubmitting a recently rejected approach suggest possible AI assistance, though the code itself is too simple to determine.
issues-found: 1
issue-severity-score: low
issue-severity-explanation: Unaddressed design concern from XDP maintainer about ad-hoc xdp_frame field additions; the code itself is correct but the approach was previously rejected.