Re: [PATCH bpf-next v7 2/9] libbpf: Add support for extended bpf syscall

[Leon Hwang]

On 23/1/26 12:12, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 8:07 PM Leon Hwang <leon.hw...@linux.dev> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 23/1/26 11:55, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 7:25 PM Leon Hwang <leon.hw...@linux.dev> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +static int probe_bpf_syscall_common_attrs(int token_fd)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       int ret;
>>>> +
>>>> +       ret = probe_sys_bpf_ext();
>>>> +       return ret > 0;
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> When you look at the above, what thoughts come to mind?
>>>
>>> ... and please don't use ai for answers.
>>
>> My initial thought was whether probe_fd() is needed here to handle and
>> close a returned fd, since the return value of probe_sys_bpf_ext() isn’t
>> obvious from the call site.
> 
> Fair enough, but then collapse it into one helper if FD is a concern.
> My question was about stylistic/taste preferences.

Understood, thanks for the clarification.

I’ll rework it with the stylistic preference in mind.

Thanks,
Leon