From: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
To: Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 3/4] selftests/bpf: Test btf_dump rendering of decl_tags
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2026 16:18:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f52fa67478afad8ead28ff3be59dcd1c2590616a.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260917012037.1396254-4-ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>
On Wed, 2026-09-16 at 18:20 -0700, Ihor Solodrai wrote:
> Cover the decl tag rendering the previous patch added. One subtest
> builds a BTF with every shape that renders, plus two that must not:
>
> - a named record with both forms of tag
> - a typedef'd anonymous record, whose attribute precedes the declarator
> - a union
> - a record that also carries the derived packed attribute
> - an anonymous record inlined at a member
> - two records whose tags are added in reverse target order, which is
> what pins the sort: without it the earlier record loses its attribute
> - attributes on a var and on a func, which btf_dump never declares
>
> A second subtest appends types and attributes to a dumper that has
> already run. Its last phase adds an attribute for a record emitted two
> dumps earlier and checks nothing is rendered for it: an attribute is
> part of the type, and btf_dump emits each definition once.
>
> A third covers members. A member attribute and a record one share a key
> in the index, so it checks they do not leak into each other's position,
> over a function pointer, an array and a bit-field - declarators the
> attribute has to follow rather than precede.
>
> A fourth covers typedefs, including a typedef of an anonymous record
> carrying three groups at once, binding to the member, the record and
> the typedef.
>
> Switch test_ctx__dump_and_compare() to compare_text_to_expected()
> while we are here.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>
> ---
Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c | 343 +++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 342 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c
> index fe04a955d46c..6c031e83dad3 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c
> @@ -224,7 +224,12 @@ static void test_ctx__dump_and_compare(struct test_ctx *t,
> fflush(t->dump_buf_file);
> t->dump_buf[t->dump_buf_sz] = 0; /* some libc implementations don't do this */
>
> - ASSERT_STREQ(t->dump_buf, expected_output, message);
> + /*
> + * The mismatch has already been reported, so this only has to
> + * register the failure. ASSERT_OK() would append a stale errno to it.
> + */
> + err = compare_text_to_expected(t->dump_buf, expected_output);
> + ASSERT_EQ(err, 0, message);
Nit: Every caller of the compare_text_to_expected does such ASSERT,
let's embed the assert in the function and avoid the above comment.
...
> +/*
> + * btf_dump indexes decl attributes incrementally, only walking types appended
> + * since the last dump. Check that attributes on types added to an existing
> + * dumper are picked up, and that one added for a record that has already been
> + * emitted is not - btf_dump emits each definition once.
> + */
> +static void test_btf_dump_decl_tags_incremental(void)
Nit: I'd drop this test or made it a part of an existing one (w/o the s3 part).
...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-17 23:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-17 1:20 [PATCH bpf-next v1 0/4] libbpf: Render decl_tags in btf_dump Ihor Solodrai
2026-09-17 1:20 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 1/4] libbpf: Walk types in btf_dump_resize(), not in mark_referenced() Ihor Solodrai
2026-09-17 22:32 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-09-17 1:20 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 2/4] libbpf: Render decl_tags in btf_dump Ihor Solodrai
2026-09-17 1:30 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-17 2:12 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-09-17 3:25 ` Ihor Solodrai
2026-09-17 22:46 ` Eduard Zingerman
2026-09-17 23:59 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2026-09-22 16:59 ` Ihor Solodrai
2026-09-22 19:43 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2026-09-17 1:20 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 3/4] selftests/bpf: Test btf_dump rendering of decl_tags Ihor Solodrai
2026-09-17 10:30 ` Alan Maguire
2026-09-17 17:38 ` Ihor Solodrai
2026-09-17 23:18 ` Eduard Zingerman [this message]
2026-09-17 1:20 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 4/4] selftests/bpf: Show the tag kflag in the raw BTF dump helper Ihor Solodrai
2026-09-17 1:27 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-17 23:21 ` Eduard Zingerman
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=f52fa67478afad8ead28ff3be59dcd1c2590616a.camel@gmail.com \
--to=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
/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