Re: [PATCH RESEND bpf-next v1] test_bpf: Rename second ALU64_SMOD_X to ALU64_SMOD_K

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 12/6/23 11:08 PM, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
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>

Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@xxxxxxxxx>






[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux