Re: [PATCH bpf-next 3/3] selftests/bpf: Enable some of the blocked cpuv4 instruction tests for bpf-gcc

On 8/21/26 1:19 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
> - [Low] The newly added multi-line comment for the gas bug workaround does not follow the required BPF subsystem comment style.
> --
>
> --- Patch [3]: [PATCH bpf-next 3/3] selftests/bpf: Enable some of the blocked cpuv4 instruction tests for bpf-gcc ---
> commit 55694625f0a27b85eb77860cd1b4f07749dec04c
> Author: Vineet Gupta <[email protected]>
>
> selftests/bpf: Enable some of the blocked cpuv4 instruction tests for bpf-gcc
>
> This commit enables several blocked BPF CPUv4 instruction tests for bpf-gcc
> by checking specific feature macros instead of relying solely on clang checks.
> It also skips address space cast tests for bpf-gcc as the feature is not
> currently supported, while retaining the existing tests for clang.
>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/compute_live_registers.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/compute_live_registers.c
>> index 338e67cd8856a..c7d5a0abff2c3 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/compute_live_registers.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/compute_live_registers.c
>> @@ -299,7 +299,14 @@ __naked void gotol(void)
>>   		"r3 = 24;"
>>   		"if r1 > 0x7 goto +2;"
>>   		"r0 = r2;"
>> +#ifdef __clang__
>>   		"gotol +1;"
>> +#else
>> +		/* gas mis-parses 'gotol +1' as 'goto l+1', same encoding
>> +		 * without the sign (binutils PR gas/34558).
>> +		 */
> [Severity: Low]
> This isn't a bug, but does this multi-line comment follow the preferred BPF
> subsystem comment style?
>
> The BPF subsystem requires the opening /* to be on its own line:
>
> 		/*
> 		 * gas mis-parses 'gotol +1' as 'goto l+1', same encoding
> 		 * without the sign (binutils PR gas/34558).
> 		 */

Right, I'll fix this in v2.

Thx,
-Vineet