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

[bot+bpf-ci]

> 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?


---
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