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 EDFDF38655A for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 04:14:18 +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=1790223260; cv=none; b=BnplFLEnhNpVoykWdt7eu6TmfrMs/LAfL5E9orepu6FFXTKQV3B4V1ddJ7bJ+5FtPC/X3LU0H2GPi0vMA2IpnUOwJjnWDC0IaTA5d601ZTmasBbFVllxM8FHDWG3jxfgtLiDlr6pR2pE1TXMbOeusa3xHmT/J4NcXmf2xyaVSPE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790223260; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ifu5Wp9GS0t8edGMVohHJ7/VTFEYuVscSXEXx5VfLMk=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=pF2uAa6cp7jgM5/c0vGBGGW2ArQLOs0bCuEnMSmhCPpgY9BAvdpcAg0kMJ4rlWgVrm0GjU5drZDDLgbSVa7vYobYZPv1GySNpiKKccK8CUeiErAv6wdHkPydbimX7+Y8iA2Cmfnq1fxlZ2XpBokM1ZjsLpMlW1K8OLJj7F20tdo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=TEEn1V0b; 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="TEEn1V0b" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 486C61F000FF; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 04:14:18 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1790223258; bh=JHqfSB9ZYoyAnxtFOJe1ci1S9YHEXUaaorwd8wUsbOE=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=TEEn1V0bqzZkXIRD4NYad5Gd/dacZ1n193Gw7aVhFaDmqNb3g/NgvofZ9RclQsg/y LHlMzNtvW7qT6BoOVfeai9SCTuCkf04Z+oNW7mWY+xDxomNcJ8ZEyAf8rg8YUog/g6 mY0cMju5zWYLHNhDZHP/6XIaWRbeJLSKtBSFB2eg9Cpb+44l7qCbYriMuuOkALokPV Jl9S/hQtbQb+fY9+tQz1ACuzh/APiynlFdbVF9r+avgyuB8N2sSZnunBQf/eqGZzGS SisKlkDmCkk0mvIFN1COJV7/lCHzWNoGfPYBq26Y1X7wf/CtqPHdEKuiXtp2umy0en YHGdN74vrfNPQ== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] selftests/bpf: Add bpf_proactive_reclaim test Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Hui Zhu" Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <67d8708eeaa771dea97d5c1f15744fe33178c43b.1790222105.git.zhuhui@kylinos.cn> References: <67d8708eeaa771dea97d5c1f15744fe33178c43b.1790222105.git.zhuhui@kylinos.cn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2026 04:14:17 +0000 Message-Id: <20260924041418.486C61F000FF@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] bpf: selftest fails instead of skipping on tmpfs-only environmen= ts -- commit 050e765c2f056e2f47574982f5ca0cece0afd7b8 Author: Hui Zhu selftests/bpf: Add bpf_proactive_reclaim test This commit adds a selftest for the bpf_proactive_reclaim kfunc. It verifies the bounded reclaim behavior by charging page cache to a cgroup and request= ing eviction of the allocated pages in a single call. > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/memcg_proactive_recla= im.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/memcg_proactive_reclaim.c > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000000..d642658a21981 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/memcg_proactive_reclaim.c [ ... ] > +void test_memcg_proactive_reclaim(void) > +{ > + struct memcg_proactive_reclaim *skel =3D NULL; > + struct reclaim_args args =3D {}; > + > + LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_test_run_opts, opts, > + .ctx_in =3D &args, > + .ctx_size_in =3D sizeof(args)); > + > + char data_file[PATH_MAX]; > + static char buf[BUF_SIZE]; > + __u64 cgroup_id; > + const char *dir; > + off_t off; > + int cg_fd =3D -1, data_fd =3D -1, err; > + > + dir =3D workload_dir(); > + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(dir, "workload dir on a regular filesystem")) > + return; [Severity: Medium] Will this cause spurious test failures in tmpfs-only environments? When workload_dir() cannot find a suitable regular filesystem (for instance, when both '.' and '/tmp' are tmpfs/ramfs), it returns NULL. Using ASSERT_OK_PTR() here unconditionally fails the test. Could this be changed to gracefully skip the test instead via test__skip(), so that CI environments lacking a disk-backed filesystem do not falsely report a failu= re? --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/cover.1790222105.gi= t.zhuhui@kylinos.cn?part=3D1