Re: [PATCH bpf-next v13 6/6] selftests/bpf: Add tests for sleepable tracepoint programs

[Mykyta Yatsenko <mykyta.yatsenko5@gmail.com>]

On 4/22/26 9:30 PM, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org wrote:
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sleepable_tracepoints.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sleepable_tracepoints.c
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sleepable_tracepoints.c
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
>> @@ -0,0 +1,142 @@
>> +void test_sleepable_tracepoints(void)
>> +{
>> +	struct test_sleepable_tracepoints *skel;
>> +
>> +	skel = test_sleepable_tracepoints__open_and_load();
>> +	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "open_and_load"))
>> +		return;
>> +
>> +	if (test__start_subtest("tp_btf"))
>> +		run_auto_attach_test(skel->progs.handle_sys_enter_tp_btf, skel);
>> +	if (test__start_subtest("raw_tp"))
>> +		run_auto_attach_test(skel->progs.handle_sys_enter_raw_tp, skel);
>> +	if (test__start_subtest("tracepoint"))
>> +		run_auto_attach_test(skel->progs.handle_sys_enter_tp, skel);
>> +	if (test__start_subtest("sys_exit"))
>> +		run_auto_attach_test(skel->progs.handle_sys_exit_tp, skel);
>> +	if (test__start_subtest("tracepoint_alias"))
>> +		test_attach_only(skel->progs.handle_sys_enter_tp_alias);
>> +	if (test__start_subtest("raw_tracepoint_alias"))
>> +		test_attach_only(skel->progs.handle_sys_enter_raw_tp_alias);
>> +	if (test__start_subtest("raw_tp_bare"))
>> +		test_raw_tp_bare(skel);
>> +	if (test__start_subtest("tp_bare"))
>> +		test_tp_bare(skel);
>> +	if (test__start_subtest("test_run"))
>> +		test_test_run(skel);
>> +	if (test__start_subtest("test_run_on_cpu_reject"))
>> +		test_test_run_on_cpu_reject(skel);
>> +	if (test__start_subtest("raw_tp_non_faultable"))
>> +		test_attach_reject(skel->progs.handle_raw_tp_non_faultable);
>> +	if (test__start_subtest("tp_non_syscall"))
>> +		test_attach_reject(skel->progs.handle_tp_non_syscall);
>> +	if (test__start_subtest("tp_btf_non_faultable_reject"))
>> +		RUN_TESTS(test_sleepable_tracepoints_fail);
>> +
>> +	test_sleepable_tracepoints__destroy(skel);
>> +}
> 
> In v8, Andrii Nakryiko suggested simplifying this test structure by using
> an array-based approach instead of individual if statements for each test
> case:
> 
>    "why not have an array
> 
>    struct { const char *name; struct bpf_program *prog } cases[] = {
>       { "tp_btf", skel->progs.handle_sys_enter_tp_btf},
>        ...
>    }
> 
>    and then do the tests in a loop?"
> 
> Reference: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAEf4BzZ_YOb1MNpUxuhFESqRWARFiBJ6yGZ-Z8xBqdCvqi_Bow@mail.gmail.com/
> 
> Would an array-driven approach reduce repetition and make it easier to
> maintain as new test cases are added?
> 
I did array-driven approach around v10, but then after few de-claudings 
and simplifications ended up with this structure that is more common in 
our selftests. This implementation reuses test logic via generic 
functions, like test_attach_only() or run_auto_attach_test().
I find it's even better this way.

> [ ... ]
> 
> 
> ---
> 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/24799223877