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 B27B13822A5 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 2026 09:03:21 +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=1788599004; cv=none; b=Xj+O5MElW8YPKtmhcRs/SqDISPE8kV5xTewE+R+4plOoAsdLeur0RfpdN5XqHVzLLsPJatyIj1zdFGcJ+ml2mpAO/rVh9ka+r1yxzS2zddQV7NmC+iEcO5eCZiBdvsqTlxqAmPmYDaGNLt052g0CIt5FNCaVGWoQUTNOI6QJx4M= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788599004; c=relaxed/simple; bh=JjxYZlCULaeMRmxnbZIXd8ZRoLgMsqwaVcvQqGIhuv8=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=hrQ5jCFXHqHsSoMLBSirqNysVCPd2OyfRj3UwavzWFqA59M7FER1kR1DzSJLX4pmHb9OMQgsKdo7ZWfvP+Xso61L6yJWYoUXz4HbeRAZdia50DE5nPnlD6It6c6ruR4Fp5ahEJND2ac7Ha/9zOZ9HSCkpV/j0crcqsMM+ivVbYU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=AKI4e8hy; 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="AKI4e8hy" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8AA9E1F00A3D; Sat, 5 Sep 2026 09:03:20 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1788599000; bh=PuHAdoy+ZTMl1z2Y+WWB6JPxOktPOUeIYbQ5VSD5aKQ=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=AKI4e8hyfXE+22zC22+8Pkaqee5niiZiKevt4M11qPvkHMVx/MxXRM+/3RPTwz+DK us8rmaogvirqi8uB2gKN/Sw3serj+lIG6KVUPKjva/E6I2hOlY/LeHO1u6vVxW2U6d JAafdbBP7jwvs4uUNQonM1zoIU6AGBE7AB9LQ3k+lHvDA20cznd1z6UiPXJ361l6tV 8Lq6g4yes8cYWl026AXOglyV+o96SBkcRu3IRW0oAtjkDwyJgD91P8DgWJo4t5gkvi /LkLpsg1CriXtlFWa7lJTnDMEn6klNPJxil1FOMeS+0DZjAl9h+LzQGFS0rY/PfkoQ qPPLj90BlKkkw== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 3/3] selftests/bpf: Enable stack argument tests for RV64 Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Pu Lehui" Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260905085857.14143-4-pulehui@huaweicloud.com> References: <20260905085857.14143-1-pulehui@huaweicloud.com> <20260905085857.14143-4-pulehui@huaweicloud.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2026 09:03:20 +0000 Message-Id: <20260905090320.8AA9E1F00A3D@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: - [Low] Missing architecture guard update for stack arguments in `tools/tes= ting/selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions.c`. -- commit 7ea892ecb0a3b4c34ad8033c7d6de54aaa01a98d Author: Feng Jiang selftests/bpf: Enable stack argument tests for RV64 Enable the stack argument selftests for RV64. The riscv guard is restricted to __riscv_xlen =3D=3D 64 since stack arguments are only supported by the RV64 JIT. Keep the __BPF_FEATURE_STACK_ARGUMENT=20 gate, defined by clang with BPF stack argument support [1]. [1] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/189060 > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/stack_arg.c b/tools/testin= g/selftests/bpf/progs/stack_arg.c > index 944e3bb603e7e..3e9ed37c57bb9 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/stack_arg.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/stack_arg.c > @@ -21,7 +21,8 @@ struct { > =20 > int timer_result; > =20 > -#if (defined(__TARGET_ARCH_x86) || defined(__TARGET_ARCH_arm64)) && \ > +#if (defined(__TARGET_ARCH_x86) || defined(__TARGET_ARCH_arm64) || \ > + (defined(__TARGET_ARCH_riscv) && __riscv_xlen =3D=3D 64)) && \ > defined(__BPF_FEATURE_STACK_ARGUMENT) > =20 > const volatile bool has_stack_arg =3D true; [Severity: Low] Does tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions.c also need this architec= ture guard update? The has_stack_arg macro in exceptions.c enables stack-argument-specific exception tests. The RV64 architecture check seems to be omitted from that = file during this refactoring: tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions.c: #if (defined(__TARGET_ARCH_x86) || defined(__TARGET_ARCH_arm64)) \ && defined(__BPF_FEATURE_STACK_ARGUMENT) const volatile bool has_stack_arg =3D true; When exception support is eventually added for the RV64 JIT, the stack argu= ment portions of the exceptions selftest will silently fail to enable, reducing = test coverage. --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260905085857.1414= 3-1-pulehui@huaweicloud.com?part=3D3