[PATCH bpf-next v2 1/3] bpf: Add bpf_arch_supports_fsession()

[Chris Mason]

On 1/28/26 10:26 AM, bot+bpf-ci at kernel.org wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>> index 5a075e06cf..070ba80e39 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>> @@ -4112,3 +4112,8 @@ bool bpf_jit_supports_timed_may_goto(void)
>>  {
>>  	return true;
>>  }
>> +
>> +bool bpf_jit_supports_fsession(void)
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> This is the actual function name in the code.

Ihor, I think the script parsing review-inline.txt chopped off the
part of the review where AI was complaining about the commit message?

commit f636685cc0b05bb758bb58729cc65dde79ac7108
Author: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang at linux.dev>

bpf: Add bpf_arch_supports_fsession()

This commit adds architecture-specific gating for fsession programs,
returning -EOPNOTSUPP when the architecture does not implement fsession
support, instead of failing at runtime with -EFAULT.

>     bpf: Add bpf_arch_supports_fsession()

The commit subject references bpf_arch_supports_fsession(), but the
actual function implemented is named bpf_jit_supports_fsession().

>     Introduce bpf_arch_supports_fsession() to explicitly gate fsession usage
>     based on architecture support.

Similarly, the commit body describes bpf_arch_supports_fsession(), while
the code uses bpf_jit_supports_fsession().

Should the commit message be updated to match the actual function name?
The function follows the existing bpf_jit_supports_*() naming convention
used by similar functions in the codebase.

-chris