From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-186.mta1.migadu.com (out-186.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.186]) (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 19E1378F4A for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2026 01:34:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.186 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772674476; cv=none; b=PqpvsjTcWnnOSa2Rj1X/ZGmc4IWRUQ5aJibrQ5RCkeBgeeXQYZlaEFRYV/cQlTeBfySBo0v8W7XR8YokZGRp421YCQcrHVz6SONAPe7QZtLQ6wTQC96g6u9DHkSWbhIIsMRPIl9CcdDmJvszPMCaiOnYVRAV/oAt+ohZLotgXeQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772674476; c=relaxed/simple; bh=pWgQ8y71kCvi/Sb21LxjNPt5SMJRWb1n0bWk+ROs/Hk=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=iB2PFUGXUGNja4VVymcfT2fXYVfCg+MdkbLxzrcpp6yIP/mSSkDzJU05AQ7Hn+a/8UL38X856bCMJdIa6P0RSYE/f8bkX0EhkSOH+dPbRKqcyPVewsMERd5q+kKxUkjaqIIvcOv15eKgp3spLZTU88iRFNXoO9jwM0NZZWkVus4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=a5J0nCAq; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.186 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="a5J0nCAq" Message-ID: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1772674462; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ZfDN/bvfBCvYWg7+zeSFGz8yRL+iVsNGXGZCk8qgMlc=; b=a5J0nCAqG5IDYwn11YB6UPJ4LkY9w2nm0tjGlR37R6r10VAggTWEd9/Pq7zjy39wK8uqnG lYcnVkFqkKN9+NSRWFAlT1gYYzwJg7GmzXKSMrs0WKNnU84BOqZ9ola2t7crB1PfX+FYbA qcb6hp3kfb82h2Zd5BULQCIBdDF7nvU= Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2026 09:34:07 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add selftests for the invocation of bpf_lwt_xmit_push_encap Content-Language: en-US To: Martin KaFai Lau , Leon Hwang , Feng Yang Cc: davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, horms@kernel.org, posk@google.com, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, eddyz87@gmail.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org References: <20260304094429.168521-1-yangfeng59949@163.com> <20260304094429.168521-3-yangfeng59949@163.com> <8f6755ed-d2ae-42ba-8052-2e6fba3d5c69@linux.dev> <682b4e08-7c21-4616-b1cc-65923c3ae09a@linux.dev> X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Leon Hwang In-Reply-To: <682b4e08-7c21-4616-b1cc-65923c3ae09a@linux.dev> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On 5/3/26 09:11, Martin KaFai Lau wrote: > On 3/4/26 2:33 AM, Leon Hwang wrote: >> On 4/3/26 17:44, Feng Yang wrote: >>> From: Feng Yang >>> >>> Calling bpf_lwt_xmit_push_encap will not cause a crash when dst is >>> missing. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Feng Yang >>> --- >>>   .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/lwt_misc.c       |  9 ++++++++ >>>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/lwt_misc.c  | 22 +++++++++++++++++++ >>>   2 files changed, 31 insertions(+) >>>   create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/lwt_misc.c >>>   create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/lwt_misc.c >>> >> >> Unnecessary to create new files. >> >> Move the adding test to verifier_lwt.c. prog_tests/verifier.c will run >> the test. > > It is actually the change from v9 to v10. I think leaving it separate is Got it. > better. It is not testing the verifier, so logically it does not fit in > verifier_lwt.c. It probably won't be the last fix for test_run+lwt, so > separating it should be useful going forward. > I realized it after sending the reply. Thanks for the explanation. Thanks, Leon