Re: [PATCH bpf-next 4/4] selftests/bpf: validate jit behaviour for tail calls

[Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>]

On Thu, 2024-08-15 at 15:09 -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:

[...]

> > > Or we can use macro like
> > > 
> > > #ifdef __TARGET_ARCH_x86
> > > __jit(...)
> > > ...
> > > #elif defined(__TARGET_ARCH_arm64)
> > > __jit(...)
> > > ...
> > > #elif defined(...)
> > > 
> > > Or we can have
> > > 
> > > __arch_x86_64
> > > __jit(...) // code for x86
> > > ...
> > > 
> > > __arch_arm64
> > > __jit(...) // code for arm64
> > > ...
> > > 
> > > __arch_riscv
> > > __jit(...) // code for riscv
> > > ...
> > 
> > This also looks good, and will work better with "*_next" and "*_not"
> > variants if we are going to borrow from llvm-lit/FileCheck.
> > 
> 
> shorter __jit() and then arch-specific __arch_blah seems pretty clean,
> so if it's not too hard, let's do this.

Ok, let's go this way.

> BTW, in your implementation you are collecting expected messages for
> all specified architectures, but really there will always be just one
> valid subset. So maybe just discard all non-host architectures upfront
> during "parsing" of decl tags?

I kinda wanted to keep parsing logic separate from processing logic,
but yeah, makes sense.

[...]