Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 6/6] docs, resolve_btfids: Document kfunc BTF annotation emission

On 8/5/26 4:16 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
> - [Medium] The minimum required pahole version in the changes.rst table was not reverted to 1.22 after its dependency on 1.26 was removed.
> --
> 
> --- Patch [6]: [PATCH bpf-next v2 6/6] docs, resolve_btfids: Document kfunc BTF annotation emission ---
> commit b5222d5ea4c3ea695d12ac70fc23f3fbadabd591
> Author: Ihor Solodrai <[email protected]>
> 
> docs, resolve_btfids: Document kfunc BTF annotation emission
> 
> This commit updates documentation and comments to clarify that resolve_btfids
> now emits BTF annotations for kfuncs instead of pahole. It modifies
> changes.rst to reflect that a specific pahole version is no longer required
> for these annotations.
> 
>> diff --git a/Documentation/process/changes.rst b/Documentation/process/changes.rst
>> index 1ca8c5f73ad00..6d1dbe4abf0f0 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/process/changes.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/process/changes.rst
> [ ... ]
>> @@ -147,10 +147,9 @@ Since Linux 5.2, if CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF is selected, the build system
>>  generates BTF (BPF Type Format) from DWARF in vmlinux, a bit later from kernel
>>  modules as well.  This requires pahole v1.22 or later.
>>  
>> -Since Linux 7.0, kfuncs annotated with KF_IMPLICIT_ARGS require pahole v1.26
>> -or later.  Without it, such kfuncs will have incorrect BTF prototypes in
>> -vmlinux, causing BPF programs to fail to load with a "func_proto incompatible
>> -with vmlinux" error.  Many sched_ext kfuncs are affected.
>> +Kfunc BTF annotations (the bpf_kfunc and bpf_fastcall decl tags and the arena
>> +address_space(1) type attribute) are emitted in-tree by resolve_btfids from the
>> +BTF_KFUNCS sets, so they no longer depend on a specific pahole version.
>>  
>>  It is found in the 'dwarves' or 'pahole' distro packages or from
>>  https://fedorapeople.org/~acme/dwarves/.
> 
> [Severity: Medium]
> Since this removes the dependency on pahole 1.26, should the minimum
> required version in the "Current Minimal Requirements" table earlier in
> this file be reverted to 1.22?

That's a good question. I'd like to check what pahole version is
actually minimal with this series.

But this is not a blocker for the series.


> 
> The table currently still lists 1.26:
> 
> Documentation/process/changes.rst:
>     openssl & libcrypto    1.0.0            openssl version
>     pahole                 1.26             pahole --version
>     pcmciautils            004              pccardctl -V
>