From: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
To: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: ast@kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
eddyz87@gmail.com, kernel-team@fb.com, martin.lau@kernel.org,
mason@kernel.org, ihor.solodrai@linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 01/12] selftests/bpf: Add a test for an __int128 by-value argument
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2026 21:25:44 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a363f511-8c65-4098-ac95-4f5b47a1d0a7@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5b5eb3abbefc69c22b09fb686c4ff7cc3d334c9b3f73110a064252f545ff88cb@mail.kernel.org>
On 9/9/26 12:13 AM, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org wrote:
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c
>> index f7f94ccebce2..0d68b92d6692 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/verifier.c
>> @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@
>> #include "verifier_helper_packet_access.skel.h"
>> #include "verifier_helper_restricted.skel.h"
>> #include "verifier_helper_value_access.skel.h"
>> +#include "verifier_int128_arg.skel.h"
> [ ... ]
>
>> @@ -214,6 +215,7 @@ void test_verifier_helper_access_var_len(void) { RUN(verifier_helper_access_var_
>> void test_verifier_helper_packet_access(void) { RUN(verifier_helper_packet_access); }
>> void test_verifier_helper_restricted(void) { RUN(verifier_helper_restricted); }
>> void test_verifier_helper_value_access(void) { RUN(verifier_helper_value_access); }
>> +void test_verifier_int128_arg(void) { RUN_TESTS(verifier_int128_arg); }
>> void test_verifier_int_ptr(void) { RUN(verifier_int_ptr); }
> This isn't a bug, but the name verifier_int128_arg describes only the
> one case progs/verifier_int128_arg.c holds at this commit. Two patches
> later in the same series, f4da9830f5a9 adds by-value struct argument
> tests (struct pair, struct small, struct with_ptr) to the same file,
> none of which are __int128. The sibling entry two lines up is
> test_verifier_aggregate_ret for the aggregate-return family.
>
> Since progs/verifier_int128_arg.c later grows to cover by-value struct
> arguments too, would a name in the same family as verifier_aggregate_ret
> -- say verifier_aggregate_arg -- fit the file better and save a rename
> later in the series?
Correct, will use verifier_aggregate_arg.
>
>
> ---
> AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
> See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md
>
> CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/34320399441
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-11 4:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-09 6:25 [PATCH bpf-next v2 00/12] bpf: Support by-value struct and __int128 arguments Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 6:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 01/12] selftests/bpf: Add a test for an __int128 by-value argument Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 7:13 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-11 4:25 ` Yonghong Song [this message]
2026-09-09 6:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 02/12] bpf: Index global function arguments by argument slot Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 7:13 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-11 4:27 ` Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 6:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 03/12] bpf: Support by-value struct arguments up to 16 bytes Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 7:13 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-11 4:29 ` Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 6:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 04/12] bpf: Support __int128 as a by-value function argument Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 6:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 05/12] bpf: Rename bpf_call_summary::num_params to arg_slot_cnt Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 6:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 06/12] bpf: Recognize by-value struct and __int128 kfunc arguments Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 6:46 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-11 4:31 ` Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 6:25 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 07/12] bpf: Prepare kfunc arguments for the JIT from an ABI description Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 6:46 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-11 5:05 ` Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 6:26 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 08/12] bpf, x86: Move kfunc arguments into the x86-64 calling convention Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 7:29 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-11 5:32 ` Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 6:26 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 09/12] bpf, arm64: Move kfunc arguments into the arm64 " Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 7:30 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-11 5:34 ` Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 6:26 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 10/12] selftests/bpf: Add C tests for by-value arguments up to 16 bytes Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 6:26 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 11/12] selftests/bpf: Add inline-asm tests for by-value arguments Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 7:30 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-11 5:37 ` Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 6:26 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 12/12] selftests/bpf: Add tests for by-value kfunc arguments Yonghong Song
2026-09-09 7:30 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-11 5:57 ` Yonghong Song
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=a363f511-8c65-4098-ac95-4f5b47a1d0a7@linux.dev \
--to=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
--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=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
--cc=mason@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