From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F71F331EC0 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2026 10:26:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781519193; cv=none; b=WsXE85OGWrGjT1ai3A3l+JCUGGTrpEajqg98K+Hv8ikXtERXtNzAdRUcfOQtW8MLmtJusZpfX7WP08slSKxSnBpHVTW1nHTR8tZ/l/WAry/BgV7nfbicgCqCG70PK40/Q5C8+cwt6kK3Y9blvwPnY6CNFdZC6cZ+J51PQUt7fOk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781519193; c=relaxed/simple; bh=IiCJ1cUM4vdBgjOXduDKV69Rm7uzky+6FsiYaGyXMws=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=jujPNOamVn12X4xGcTIRZFfppxpCkTNRfCwBnJ3NYWXgCGWUT30LQ8FQKel8oj7WyYxcg+p29H/aAsHl0ZglL9RMuK9EyzwH4+syZ4hnUEKX0VnTj2VH1DD9AjB19EFGwI94c+3B/8YzN9d2LsBjtcYpOsmhp6lQS1n3xiP49g0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=ANGZ5yLo; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="ANGZ5yLo" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EE0521F00A3A; Mon, 15 Jun 2026 10:26:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1781519192; bh=P7hFNB3bkruaQhfjNZAYnWGFe+AUQbn8Pk+wxKq6pI8=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=ANGZ5yLob6zhy+gymLpPmDPo26NkWTtf62kwjvRHBx88rdf+XDluupAgUuo555S+V gFQexlRoJb2WCLtI0MwsiPWZA1egjwdQuuv+EUhSC6mkWzny6huWlJVcv0rRZztppH 3pF0S844EjR+3arkw34owfsbU3imO/TG7phIZTVaKEbQzNz/mCMNLLEnVuUy8AVIX6 MoOCR7XFOLh65wXMsvxsTgaa7X5QLhyvu8ksCl9S/3COw60TvoJEh3CDrItSANKY4g qENYU/HPi4H2QOvQp/01+fsI/sGfXcNpMc26yRrigy+un6rOEb5zhxC0gyDxhJ4lI0 Wa85UFD4AKj2g== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 4/4] selftests/bpf: Test jited inline of bpf_get_smp_processor_id() for LoongArch Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Tiezhu Yang" Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260615100506.19558-5-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> References: <20260615100506.19558-5-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2026 10:26:31 +0000 Message-Id: <20260615102631.EE0521F00A3A@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Medium] Broken selftest due to missing kernel JIT implementation and inc= orrect structural offset -- commit 8f74b6910905428534e06ac6efaea6a8091a844f Author: Tiezhu Yang selftests/bpf: Test jited inline of bpf_get_smp_processor_id() for LoongArch This commit adds a BPF selftest for LoongArch to verify that the bpf_get_smp_processor_id() helper is correctly inlined by the JIT compiler. > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_jit_inline.c b/to= ols/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_jit_inline.c > index 8560577f25576..02e562f56f9d3 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_jit_inline.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_jit_inline.c > @@ -21,4 +21,15 @@ int inline_bpf_get_current_task(void) > return 0; > } > =20 > +SEC("fentry/bpf_fentry_test2") > +__success __retval(0) > +__arch_loongarch > +__jited(" ld.wu $a5, $tp, 16") [Severity: Medium] Will this test fail in the current tree? It appears the kernel-side JIT=20 implementation to inline this helper on LoongArch is missing. Without it,=20 this test will expect an inline load but the JIT will generate a standard=20 function call, causing the assertion to fail. Also, is the offset 16 correct here? In the current tree's LoongArch layout, struct thread_info contains a task pointer at offset 0, which means the cpu field is at offset 24, not 16. The test appears to rely on an out-of-tree configuration or prerequisite patch where the offset is 16. > +int inline_bpf_get_smp_processor_id(void) > +{ > + bpf_get_smp_processor_id(); > + > + return 0; > +} > + > char _license[] SEC("license") =3D "GPL"; --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260615100506.1955= 8-1-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn?part=3D4