From: Wang Yibo <szwyb123@gmail.com>
To: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] selftests/bpf: name the failing registration in bpf_testmod_init
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2026 08:07:05 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261022080500.100-3-szwyb123@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261022080500.100-1-szwyb123@gmail.com>
bpf_testmod_init() chains its registrations with ret = ret ?: ...;
when one of them fails the module only reports the final error code,
and there is no way to tell which call failed without instrumenting
the code. Wrap the calls in a macro that prints the failing expression
and its return value instead.
Signed-off-by: Wang Yibo <szwyb123@gmail.com>
---
.../selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c | 41 +++++++++++--------
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
index 6380f52f4..625b6dc3b 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_kmods/bpf_testmod.c
@@ -2593,22 +2593,31 @@ static int bpf_testmod_init(void)
void **tramp;
int ret;
- ret = register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_UNSPEC, &bpf_testmod_common_kfunc_set);
- ret = ret ?: register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, &bpf_testmod_kfunc_set);
- ret = ret ?: register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING, &bpf_testmod_kfunc_set);
- ret = ret ?: register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_SYSCALL, &bpf_testmod_kfunc_set);
- ret = ret ?: register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_STRUCT_OPS, &bpf_testmod_kfunc_set);
- ret = ret ?: register_btf_fmodret_id_set(&bpf_testmod_trampoline_count_fmodret_set);
- ret = ret ?: register_bpf_struct_ops(&bpf_bpf_testmod_ops, bpf_testmod_ops);
- ret = ret ?: register_bpf_struct_ops(&bpf_testmod_ops2, bpf_testmod_ops2);
- ret = ret ?: register_bpf_struct_ops(&bpf_testmod_ops3, bpf_testmod_ops3);
- ret = ret ?: register_bpf_struct_ops(&testmod_st_ops, bpf_testmod_st_ops);
- ret = ret ?: register_bpf_struct_ops(&testmod_multi_st_ops, bpf_testmod_multi_st_ops);
- ret = ret ?: register_btf_id_dtor_kfuncs(bpf_testmod_dtors,
- ARRAY_SIZE(bpf_testmod_dtors),
- THIS_MODULE);
- if (ret < 0)
- return ret;
+#define TRY(expr) \
+ do { \
+ ret = (expr); \
+ if (ret < 0) { \
+ pr_err("%s: %s failed, ret %d\n", \
+ __func__, #expr, ret); \
+ return ret; \
+ } \
+ } while (0)
+
+ TRY(register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_UNSPEC, &bpf_testmod_common_kfunc_set));
+ TRY(register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS, &bpf_testmod_kfunc_set));
+ TRY(register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING, &bpf_testmod_kfunc_set));
+ TRY(register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_SYSCALL, &bpf_testmod_kfunc_set));
+ TRY(register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_STRUCT_OPS, &bpf_testmod_kfunc_set));
+ TRY(register_btf_fmodret_id_set(&bpf_testmod_trampoline_count_fmodret_set));
+ TRY(register_bpf_struct_ops(&bpf_bpf_testmod_ops, bpf_testmod_ops));
+ TRY(register_bpf_struct_ops(&bpf_testmod_ops2, bpf_testmod_ops2));
+ TRY(register_bpf_struct_ops(&bpf_testmod_ops3, bpf_testmod_ops3));
+ TRY(register_bpf_struct_ops(&testmod_st_ops, bpf_testmod_st_ops));
+ TRY(register_bpf_struct_ops(&testmod_multi_st_ops, bpf_testmod_multi_st_ops));
+ TRY(register_btf_id_dtor_kfuncs(bpf_testmod_dtors,
+ ARRAY_SIZE(bpf_testmod_dtors),
+ THIS_MODULE));
+#undef TRY
if (bpf_fentry_test1(0) < 0)
return -EINVAL;
sock = NULL;
--
2.51.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-22 0:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-22 0:06 [PATCH bpf-next 0/3] Add diagnostics for kfunc registration failures and jit subtest skips Wang Yibo
2026-10-22 0:07 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/3] bpf: report kfunc sets that fail BTF sanity check Wang Yibo
2026-10-22 0:28 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-10-22 0:07 ` Wang Yibo [this message]
2026-10-25 1:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] selftests/bpf: name the failing registration in bpf_testmod_init Alexei Starovoitov
2026-10-22 0:07 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/3] selftests/bpf: say how to fix the missing LLVM skip for jited checks Wang Yibo
2026-10-22 0:28 ` bot+bpf-ci
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=20261022080500.100-3-szwyb123@gmail.com \
--to=szwyb123@gmail.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
/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