Currently, there are two test cases with same name
"ALU64_SMOD_X: -7 % 2 = -1", the first one is right,
the second one should be ALU64_SMOD_K because its
code is BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_K.
Before:
test_bpf: #170 ALU64_SMOD_X: -7 % 2 = -1 jited:1 4 PASS
test_bpf: #171 ALU64_SMOD_X: -7 % 2 = -1 jited:1 4 PASS
After:
test_bpf: #170 ALU64_SMOD_X: -7 % 2 = -1 jited:1 4 PASS
test_bpf: #171 ALU64_SMOD_K: -7 % 2 = -1 jited:1 4 PASS
Fixes: daabb2b098e0 ("bpf/tests: add tests for cpuv4 instructions")
Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Add "bpf-next" in the patch subject, sorry for that
lib/test_bpf.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/test_bpf.c b/lib/test_bpf.c
index 7916503e6a6a..3c5a1ca06219 100644
--- a/lib/test_bpf.c
+++ b/lib/test_bpf.c
@@ -6293,7 +6293,7 @@ static struct bpf_test tests[] = {
},
/* BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_K off=1 (SMOD64) */
{
- "ALU64_SMOD_X: -7 % 2 = -1",
+ "ALU64_SMOD_K: -7 % 2 = -1",
.u.insns_int = {
BPF_LD_IMM64(R0, -7),
BPF_ALU64_IMM_OFF(BPF_MOD, R0, 2, 1),
--
2.42.0
