> 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 <[email protected]> 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? --- 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
