Re: [RFC bpf-next 10/12] selftests/bpf: Add fentry tracing multi func test
flat view
From: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org
Date: 2026-02-03 10:13:55
Also in:
bpf
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tracing_multi_check.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tracing_multi_check.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e5efa9884 --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tracing_multi_check.c
[ ... ]
+ } else if (ip == &bpf_fentry_test3) {
+ char a, b; ^
The commit message states "We need to cast to real arguments types in
multi_arg_check, because the checked value can be shorter than u64."
Should variable b be declared as int instead of char?
The kernel function signature is:
noinline int bpf_fentry_test3(char a, int b, u64 c)
The second parameter is int, not char. While the test passes with the
current test value of 5, this appears inconsistent with the stated goal
of matching argument types.
+ __u64 c;
[ ... ]
+ } else if (ip == &bpf_fentry_test6) {[ ... ]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ e = (void*) value;; + if (bpf_get_func_arg(ctx, 5, &value)) + return; + f = value;;
^^ This isn't a bug, but there are extra semicolons on these two lines. --- 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/21625440628 AI-authorship-score: low AI-authorship-explanation: The commit follows standard kernel conventions with minor human-typical inconsistencies, and the author is a known BPF subsystem developer. issues-found: 2 issue-severity-score: low issue-severity-explanation: Minor code quality issues in test code: a type mismatch in variable declaration and extraneous semicolons, neither affecting test functionality.