On 2026/1/10 14:05, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:

On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 7:38 PM Menglong Dong [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

Remove the first hunk and make the 2nd a comment instead of a real function?

Agree. So it will be:

+static bool bpf_fsession_is_return(void *ctx)
+{
+       /* This helper call is implemented and inlined by the verifier, and the logic is:
+         *   return !!(((u64 *)ctx)[-1] & (1 << BPF_TRAMP_M_IS_RETURN));
+         */
+        return false;
+}

No need to define an empty function.
A comment next to 'inline-by-bpf-asm' part explaining what is going on
will be enough.

Yeah, I see. I'll remove the whole part, and do some comment
in the verifier where I inline this function instead.

Thanks!
Menglong Dong