On Thu, 2024-10-10 at 11:54 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 11:47 AM Martin Kelly
> <martin.kelly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > The documentation says CONFIG_FUNCTION_ERROR_INJECTION is supported
> > only
> > on x86. This was presumably true at the time of writing, but it's
> > now
> > supported on many other architectures too, so drop the part of the
> > statement mentioning x86.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Martin Kelly <martin.kelly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 3 +--
> > tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 3 +--
> > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > index 8ab4d8184b9d..a2ddfc8c8ed9 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > @@ -3105,8 +3105,7 @@ union bpf_attr {
> > * **ALLOW_ERROR_INJECTION** in the kernel code.
> > *
> > * Also, the helper is only available for the
> > architectures having
> > - * the CONFIG_FUNCTION_ERROR_INJECTION option. As of
> > this writing,
> > - * x86 architecture is the only one to support this
> > feature.
> > + * the CONFIG_FUNCTION_ERROR_INJECTION option.
>
> Something like this is good to add to
> Documentation/fault-injection/fault-injection.rst
> and may be a link to it somewhere in Documentation/bpf/.
>
> But uapi/bpf.h is not such place.
>
> pw-bot: cr
Would you prefer to just remove the sentence altogether? Currently,
this statement is already in the headers, so I think it's best to
either correct it or remove it, but not leave it the way it is (which
is not very accurate).
