Re: [PATCH v11 6/8] selftests/bpf: Add tailcall verifier selftest for powerpc64

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] Multi-line comment in the BPF subsystem does not follow the required style.
--

--- Patch [6]: [PATCH v11 6/8] selftests/bpf: Add tailcall verifier selftest for powerpc64 ---
commit db11673742dde393ab8f7429a8221e1b2ec5a904
Author: Abhishek Dubey <[email protected]>

selftests/bpf: Add tailcall verifier selftest for powerpc64

This commit adds a BPF verifier tailcall JIT testcase for powerpc64 to
the selftests suite. It introduces the expected JIT instruction sequences
for tail calls on the architecture.

> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_tailcall_jit.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_tailcall_jit.c
> index 48fa34d2959f4..182302ff1db07 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_tailcall_jit.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_tailcall_jit.c
> @@ -91,6 +91,81 @@ __jited("	popq	%rax")
[ ... ]
> +__jited("	std 9, -8(1)")
> +__jited("	mflr 0")
> +__jited("	std 0, 16(1)")
> +__jited("	stdu 1, {{.*}}(1)")
> +/* load address and call sub() via count register
> + *
> + * Address materialization differs between PCREL and non-PCREL kernels.
> + * Skip the address generation sequence and verify only that the call
> + * target is loaded into CTR before branching.
> + */

[Severity: Low]
Does this multi-line comment follow the modern BPF subsystem style rules?

The BPF subsystem style requires the opening /* of a multi-line comment
to be on its own line, rather than having text on the same line. Should
the comment start with a standalone /* to match the expected format?

[ ... ]

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=6