From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
andrii@kernel.org, eddyz87@gmail.com, ihor.solodrai@linux.dev,
ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, memxor@gmail.com,
martin.lau@linux.dev, song@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev,
jolsa@kernel.org, emil@etsalapatis.com, shuah@kernel.org,
martin.lau@kernel.org, mason@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next] selftests/bpf: Use %p for pointer formatting
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2026 14:52:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260918125256.ZEsLOzCf@linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aec6c555995eb1efb36bafec4c49e2235fc6899cb74beb6dcb3ce058ada6d814@mail.kernel.org>
On 2026-09-18 11:38:34 [+0000], bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org wrote:
> > selftests/bpf: Use %p for pointer formatting
> >
> > Networking used to print the socket pointer with %p as output in the
> > /proc interface. This was later changed to %pK in order not to reveal
> > the actual pointer value. The output format has then been copied to bpf
> > tests which produce the same format including the %pK format modifier.
> >
> > Networking recently replaced the socket output with a plain 0 because
> > the socket pointer added no value to the output and the %pK should be
> > removed from library handling. The format remained otherwise unchanged in
> > order not to break any tools which parsing this information.
> >
> > This change removes the %pK modifier from bpf, following the change in
> > networking.
>
> Does this subject line accurately describe what the patch does?
Oh. The %pK gets removed, not replaced with %p.
> Looking at the actual changes, no %p format specifier is introduced
> anywhere in the test code:
>
> - bpf_iter_netlink.c gets a literal "0 " string
> - bpf_iter_tcp4.c / bpf_iter_tcp6.c / bpf_iter_udp4.c / bpf_iter_udp6.c
> get a literal "0" string
> - bpf_iter_unix.c gets "%08u" with a constant 0 argument
> - test_snprintf.c simply drops the %pK specifier (its remaining %p was
> already present before this patch)
>
> The only place where %p appears in the patch is in README.rst, in a
> historical verifier log excerpt.
>
> The body text says "This change removes the %pK modifier from bpf",
> which matches the v1 subject "selftests/bpf: Replace %pK output with 0"
> rather than this v2 subject.
Indeed.
> A few additional points:
>
> The changelog is unchanged from v1 and doesn't mention the
> header/column-width edits this version adds:
> - bpf_iter_netlink.c "sk" column changed from 17 to 3 chars
> - bpf_iter_unix.c "Num" column changed from 18 to 10 chars
>
> This seems relevant since the body asserts "The format remained
> otherwise unchanged in order not to break any tools".
This updates the output so the column width aligns with the output.
"Format unchanged" means no items were removed or reordered.
> The referenced networking commit isn't named in the message. Looking at
> the v1 discussion, commit 7c0ec6288b497 ("net: Replace %pK output with
> 0") was cited below the --- separator, so it's absent from the committed
> message. That commit doesn't appear to be in this tree yet (checking
> net/netlink/af_netlink.c, net/unix/af_unix.c, net/ipv4/udp.c and the
> tcp_ipv[46].c files still use %pK), which would make a Link: or commit
> reference useful for readers.
>
> > order not to break any tools which parsing this information.
>
> This isn't a bug, but there's a grammar error here ("which parsing"
> should be "which are parsing").
Okay.
Sebastian
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-18 12:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-18 10:26 [PATCH v2 bpf-next] selftests/bpf: Use %p for pointer formatting Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-09-18 11:38 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-18 12:52 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [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=20260918125256.ZEsLOzCf@linutronix.de \
--to=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bot+bpf-ci@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-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=mason@kernel.org \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox