From: Tianyi Chen <diannaaav@gmail.com>
To: qmo@kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: andrii@kernel.org, eddyz87@gmail.com, ihor.solodrai@linux.dev,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v5 0/2] bpftool: Support symbolic map creation flags
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2026 11:46:56 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260911034658.219396-1-diannaaav@gmail.com> (raw)
Add comma-separated BPF_F_* names to map create flags, with matching
documentation, completion and selftests.
Changes in v5:
- State explicitly that the old numeric parser accepted empty input as
zero and could truncate or wrap out-of-range values. Rejecting those
inputs is an intentional compatibility change already present in v4.
- Explain why BPF_F_PATH_FD is excluded from map creation flags.
- Point the manual to feature list_builtins map_create_flags for the
accepted symbolic names and rewrap the feature documentation.
The parser and tests are unchanged from v4.
v4: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260911025044.190540-1-diannaaav@gmail.com
Review: https://lore.kernel.org/r/523c73e7f76e0634a3e061e76ca4c39eb21cb006fc78875ddaf6a35e38bfd500@mail.kernel.org
Validation:
- Rebuilt bpftool, its manual pages and the focused selftest runner.
- All 29 bpftool_map_flags subtests passed. The three revised series
were tested together: 52 subtests passed with no skips or failures in
an x86-64 KVM guest running Linux 7.3.0-rc2 from bpf/master, with
LLVM 20-built BPF test objects.
- Bash syntax, bpftool synchronization checks and diff checks passed.
- The generated patches apply cleanly to current bpf-next.
This was a focused run. Unrelated selftests requiring unavailable kernel
features were excluded from the build with PERMISSIVE=1.
Tianyi Chen (2):
bpftool: Accept symbolic map creation flags
selftests/bpf: Cover symbolic bpftool map creation flags
.../bpftool/Documentation/bpftool-feature.rst | 16 +--
.../bpf/bpftool/Documentation/bpftool-map.rst | 15 ++-
tools/bpf/bpftool/bash-completion/bpftool | 22 +++-
tools/bpf/bpftool/feature.c | 7 +-
tools/bpf/bpftool/main.h | 1 +
tools/bpf/bpftool/map.c | 86 ++++++++++++++-
.../bpf/prog_tests/bpftool_map_flags.c | 100 ++++++++++++++++++
7 files changed, 231 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpftool_map_flags.c
base-commit: af0b84a9215d951d16f26b7ee34353b970cf5d4e
--
2.55.0
next reply other threads:[~2026-09-11 3:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-11 3:46 Tianyi Chen [this message]
2026-09-11 3:46 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 1/2] bpftool: Accept symbolic map creation flags Tianyi Chen
2026-09-11 3:46 ` [PATCH bpf-next v5 2/2] selftests/bpf: Cover symbolic bpftool " Tianyi Chen
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=20260911034658.219396-1-diannaaav@gmail.com \
--to=diannaaav@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=qmo@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