Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 02/13] bpf: Add helpers to describe the R0:R2 return register pair

On 8/10/26 6:24 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>     - subprog_ret_type() resolves a subprogram's BTF return type. It is
>>       factored out of subprog_returns_void(). The verifier_bug_if(!func) and
>>       !func_proto checks it replaces are redundant, since
>>       check_btf_func_early() already rejects a func_info record whose type_id
>>       is not a BTF_KIND_FUNC pointing at a BTF_KIND_FUNC_PROTO.
> Is check_btf_func_early() the correct function name here?  Running
> `git grep check_btf_func_early` at this commit returns nothing, and the
> validation the changelog describes lives in prepare_btf_func()
> (kernel/bpf/check_btf.c:31):
>
>      /* check type_id */
>      type = btf_type_by_id(btf, krecord[i].type_id);
>      if (!type || !btf_type_is_func(type)) { ... goto err_free; }
>      func_proto = btf_type_by_id(btf, type->type);
>      if (unlikely(!func_proto || !btf_type_is_func_proto(func_proto)))
>              goto err_free;
>
> The in-code comment added by the same hunk already uses the correct
> name: "Both already validated by prepare_btf_func() at prog load."

Okay, replaced check_btf_func_early() with prepare_btf_func()
in the commit message.

>
>
> ---
> 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/31446101762