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 EC211547042 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 02:31:09 +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=1790562671; cv=none; b=GPYRwcvMSu2DjXGNRv0H22dOa7MEpgb+ZWu+3bh6mK1YGFckIBUF/d3I4bVAKv4UiRIU8+LqMe+QCSzFRYQPAEA6GQmBChWPipXZK5y/XzUiTpf+UGP9BwKJYv1upJ00qlQIm2Onuk3hcyNk3SlhbltWG1zdwbdCLL+X7kN5Ni0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790562671; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xMBrgwZ8XfaBdx+x2Nhe/6MDtWFFoDxUWCqOzhR3AXY=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=FjhvcghTAqn48ggs9mfkqE4HSYv9BjXKybs3oEUrO02WOFtTr0Z40sbPyskpZAyX3CcV9QkML4InkemLdK++ZK5Y6aXR+YZALO/eKi2xKwM0X8+dA6IH05OgwLy9oYCG9UG4wsgx/gg+O6DpBGFPS6C0ILUayEfmnfW4StBqv9s= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=VPxxBjdw; 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="VPxxBjdw" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5C1B21F000FF; Mon, 28 Sep 2026 02:31:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1790562669; bh=ZIn4ssKudH70BFWwq9d8UDnW3c+Qxz1fmXpvWfY4eRQ=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=VPxxBjdw8yS/RUq+5z+kKwi9TeLa5BBDdq1H+KoWRu+O/n1NNfywj8nrMYDNT51p/ erAx/a1jAYg+iuDIRcjrty98nMVKm4tKfXFNa15xdWUMEHeAQdPblGu5tJJVg2+AYn 2sp52yt7+ai7R2KlupG/OjwuKdhhHfYdG8GWQL//by9z84SfTuZOAbVIh7LEgfwrvJ RDl+Uz78zW2t398SRCVEP51dkpZTGTjZGQxzR9xW+R49kekMeu2r8dWTMwsl8v02p1 mRh1eH3voUdqze4V63kv/wafCrt04rzdDgK6ctGX8k2Q7W3SDisvGDYgrh5Pyv1a3m q0lwfKyI26WXw== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/2] selftests/bpf: Enable gotox tests for riscv64 Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Chen Pei" Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260928022109.1093-3-cp0613@linux.alibaba.com> References: <20260928022109.1093-1-cp0613@linux.alibaba.com> <20260928022109.1093-3-cp0613@linux.alibaba.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2026 02:31:08 +0000 Message-Id: <20260928023109.5C1B21F000FF@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] bpf: missing architecture guards for riscv64 gotox tests -- commit 1d33b2e23d145afdb7fdcec7bed2452e5b940956 Author: Chen Pei selftests/bpf: Enable gotox tests for riscv64 This commit adds riscv64 to the architecture whitelist in verifier_gotox.c because the JIT now supports the gotox instruction and jump tables. > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_gotox.c b/tools/t= esting/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_gotox.c > index f5a9878c7b8d4..96a9d914930ee 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_gotox.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_gotox.c > @@ -6,7 +6,9 @@ > #include "bpf_misc.h" > #include "../../../include/linux/filter.h" > =20 > -#if defined(__TARGET_ARCH_x86) || defined(__TARGET_ARCH_arm64) || define= d(__TARGET_ARCH_powerpc) > +#if defined(__TARGET_ARCH_x86) || defined(__TARGET_ARCH_arm64) || \ > + defined(__TARGET_ARCH_powerpc) || \ > + (defined(__TARGET_ARCH_riscv) && __riscv_xlen =3D=3D 64) [Severity: Low] Are there other files that need their architecture guards updated for riscv= 64 gotox tests to prevent a regression in test coverage? For example, tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_insn_array.c has: #if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__powerpc__) || defined(__aarch64__) static int map_create(__u32 map_type, __u32 max_entries) { ... This skips the bpf_insn_array test suite on riscv64, which heavily exercises the gotox jump table logic. Similarly, tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/compute_live_registers.c has: #if defined(__TARGET_ARCH_x86) || defined(__TARGET_ARCH_arm64) SEC("socket") __log_level(2) __msg("2: .1........ (07) r1 +=3D 8") __msg("3: .1........ (79) r2 =3D *(u64 *)(r1 +0)") __msg("4: ..2....... (b7) r3 =3D 1") __msg("5: ..23...... (b7) r4 =3D 2") __msg("6: ..234..... (0d) gotox r2") ... This prevents the gotox liveness tracking tests from being compiled and run on riscv64. Should these architecture guards also be updated to ensure comprehensive te= st coverage for the newly introduced JIT feature on riscv64? [ ... ] --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260928022109.1093= -1-cp0613@linux.alibaba.com?part=3D2