From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net [23.128.96.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DDD817AA2; Fri, 2 Jun 2023 09:45:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yb1-xb44.google.com (mail-yb1-xb44.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b44]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92DE4134; Fri, 2 Jun 2023 02:45:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yb1-xb44.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-bacf5b89da7so1993280276.2; Fri, 02 Jun 2023 02:45:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1685699108; x=1688291108; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=sO9CYKq3zsyFP6OrznRGehjIWLTIrAXykOQSpEJEjfc=; b=c6IdsA3jP2haZ6HorJDy1WTeD7Ii7Z2qg/GiS0h1mQjOI3zcuhZvcZ78Gjmvgeir3o FvpdyAt1cx8GTHk3QFDFIRe3jq0AaJnFDVUtfmoH0LbI8uKuSrKo+MKiDBotn1trb2tR tgGYnNihC3nr/sgM6EyaKSdD6pzJkt7Ttx4nIYf0o5pavjZzRrYwLgeAtysz62QHhVLm 6H94i+p4AE0eSwHnY/abShLK6E3JeGf+rOQHOBG7g/WFtro49tzCtsKmZ1ocmIcAGm3d K5U12MsezDSY5rVrdbv5ppdhccK6Yyj5PKUByZpeM/6LtfP3ssFvTRKgGU638nI3Xytb +Tog== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1685699108; x=1688291108; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=sO9CYKq3zsyFP6OrznRGehjIWLTIrAXykOQSpEJEjfc=; b=Vyj/ahWEkr22k+ptLgKQi/8pmC3y8PVZvQZLKYl42NG1GKz3hEpnKfEQkKmdw3fpEx x3JaRWhQ4uIqmN2rKYRPhOuQV6VG9hFh8cLJrgKJZbP7rkN2WKIaDIesJoRti5yQs3M0 +c15+jdQN4GBUhHR6LerTjX5W/Lie01Ko+qI8k0sLHl26p+lKA+l2AOPbtpp/S3zvspK d1rBw6LCQHPqXAf31dQ9jOnnY4+6zHUFtNwkaOYSAy8h/jNHCLsmbqzFunedNDr28vpX MySZCjsdw3oAmGfcDRa9Keb4DCWxkhz3T5ZtgsomSC9M0XP/zYPixHS3/LiS7iCUCUl2 emPA== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDzF/1VtAV5VElnDgDwmjWRMLl1PjkXzeAhVW4jvBPQABP32FP1V cPHPZ1zCZTylu8Eq0jWNJroIU5qBG+V9fWXVO/E= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ7K2EOgjVq4WoCi44uJ9i/tvSnqHqw52MlY2vtO1cg3EMJxhBOLXPIBd6eWR9XrxZj65pTK1oOmh5KREk2hdV4= X-Received: by 2002:a25:9d89:0:b0:ba8:620b:38a7 with SMTP id v9-20020a259d89000000b00ba8620b38a7mr2334349ybp.53.1685699107625; Fri, 02 Jun 2023 02:45:07 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20230602065958.2869555-1-imagedong@tencent.com> <20230602065958.2869555-5-imagedong@tencent.com> In-Reply-To: <20230602065958.2869555-5-imagedong@tencent.com> From: Menglong Dong Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2023 17:44:56 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 4/5] selftests/bpf: rename bpf_fentry_test{7,8,9} to bpf_fentry_test_ptr* To: olsajiri@gmail.com Cc: davem@davemloft.net, dsahern@kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev, song@kernel.org, yhs@fb.com, john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@google.com, haoluo@google.com, jolsa@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, mykolal@fb.com, shuah@kernel.org, benbjiang@tencent.com, iii@linux.ibm.com, imagedong@tencent.com, xukuohai@huawei.com, chantr4@gmail.com, zwisler@google.com, eddyz87@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 3:03=E2=80=AFPM wrote: > > From: Menglong Dong > > To make it more clear, let's make the N in bpf_fentry_testN as the count > of target function arguments. Therefore, let's rename > bpf_fentry_test{7,8,9} to bpf_fentry_test_ptr{1,2,3}. > > Meanwhile, to stop the checkpatch complaining, move the "noinline" ahead > of "int". > > Reviewed-by: Jiang Biao > Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong > --- > net/bpf/test_run.c | 12 +++++----- > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_cookie.c | 24 +++++++++---------- > .../bpf/prog_tests/kprobe_multi_test.c | 16 ++++++------- > .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fentry_test.c | 16 ++++++------- > .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/fexit_test.c | 16 ++++++------- > .../selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_ip_test.c | 2 +- > .../selftests/bpf/progs/kprobe_multi.c | 12 +++++----- > .../bpf/progs/verifier_btf_ctx_access.c | 2 +- > .../selftests/bpf/verifier/atomic_fetch_add.c | 4 ++-- > 9 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-) > Sadly, this patch breaks the "bpf_fentry_test?" pattern in kprobe_multi.c and kprobe_multi_test.c. I'm considering changing the "bpf_fentry_test?" to "bpf_fentry_test*" to solve this problem. Another option, we can remove kretprobe_test7_result and kretprobe_test8_result and only check bpf_fentry_test1~6 in kprobe_multi_check. Or......maybe I shouldn't rename them?