Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] tools/bpf: Remove legacy BPF tools
flat view
From: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org
Date: 2026-10-20 08:58:54
Also in:
bpf, linux-doc, linux-kselftest, lkml
tools/bpf: Remove legacy BPF tools
TL;DR: Nit only: the reworded filter.rst sentence says the instruction table lists opcodes, but it only has mnemonics and descriptions, so the new wording may mislead readers.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/Documentation/networking/filter.rst b/Documentation/networking/filter.rst index e0b9dc14a9bf..ee35cea6face 100644 --- a/Documentation/networking/filter.rst +++ b/Documentation/networking/filter.rst
[ ... ]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -213,9 +210,8 @@ contains a miscellaneous argument that can be interpreted in different ways depending on the given instruction in op. The instruction set consists of load, store, branch, alu, miscellaneous -and return instructions that are also represented in bpf_asm syntax. This -table lists all bpf_asm instructions available resp. what their underlying -opcodes as defined in linux/filter.h stand for: +and return instructions. This table lists the assembly notation and +the corresponding opcodes defined in linux/filter.h: =========== =================== ===================== Instruction Addressing mode Description
Does the table that follows actually list opcodes? It only has three columns: Instruction (mnemonics such as ld, ldh, jeq, ret), Addressing mode, and Description (prose such as "Load word into A"). There are no opcode values like 0x28 and no BPF_* opcode macros from linux/filter.h or linux/bpf_common.h in it. The old text said the table showed what the underlying opcodes defined in linux/filter.h "stand for", which matched the Description column. The new wording reads as if the opcodes themselves are listed, so a reader looking for the encoding of an instruction will not find it there. Would something like "This table lists the assembly notation and what the corresponding opcodes defined in linux/filter.h do:" keep the original meaning? --- 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/39395316270