From: Donggeun Yoo <donggeunyoo.kernel@gmail.com>
To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org,
eddyz87@gmail.com, memxor@gmail.com, martin.lau@linux.dev,
song@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev, jolsa@kernel.org,
emil@etsalapatis.com, ihor.solodrai@linux.dev,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
donggeunyoo.kernel@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf 2/2] selftests/bpf: Test per-cpu initialization of a BPF_F_CPU created element
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2026 19:21:05 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260920102105.445051-1-donggeunyoo.kernel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260920095859.635921F000FF@smtp.kernel.org>
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 09:58:58 +0000, sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote:
> [Severity: Medium]
> Does this force a hard failure on uniprocessor systems instead of correctly
> skipping the test?
>
> Since UP is a valid hardware configuration for running selftests, if a test
> requires multiple CPUs, shouldn't it gracefully skip using test__skip()
> rather than asserting a failure?
Right, that is a bug in the test. With one possible CPU there is no second
CPU that could hold a stale value, so the case this subtest exists for
cannot occur; booted with -smp 1, all three of the new subtests fail rather
than skip. I will use test__skip() in v2.
> [Severity: Low]
> This isn't a bug, but the BPF subsystem strictly requires multi-line comments
> to have the opening /* on its own line. Could this be reformatted to match
> the required style?
It is not a requirement, but it is the documented preference, so I will
follow it. Commit 82b8000c28b5 ("net: drop special comment style") removed
the netdev comment rule, which leaves the general preference in
Documentation/process/coding-style.rst, and that is the form you describe.
checkpatch checks neither form. I will reformat the comment in v2.
Thanks,
Donggeun
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-20 10:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-20 9:31 [PATCH bpf 0/2] bpf: fix per-cpu initialization of a BPF_F_CPU created hash element Donggeun Yoo
2026-09-20 9:31 ` [PATCH bpf 1/2] bpf: Zero-fill other CPUs when BPF_F_CPU creates a per-cpu " Donggeun Yoo
2026-09-20 10:19 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-20 10:29 ` Donggeun Yoo
2026-09-20 16:21 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-20 9:31 ` [PATCH bpf 2/2] selftests/bpf: Test per-cpu initialization of a BPF_F_CPU created element Donggeun Yoo
2026-09-20 9:58 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-20 10:21 ` Donggeun Yoo [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260920102105.445051-1-donggeunyoo.kernel@gmail.com \
--to=donggeunyoo.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
--cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.