On 12/12/23 02:05, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 11:27:25PM +0800, Leon Hwang wrote: >> Add some test cases to confirm the tailcall hierarchy issue has been fixed. >> >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs -t tailcalls >> 235/17 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_1:OK >> 235/18 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry:OK >> 235/19 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fexit:OK >> 235/20 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_fentry_fexit:OK >> 235/21 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_2:OK >> 235/22 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_3:OK >> 235 tailcalls:OK >> Summary: 1/22 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED >> >> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <hffilwlqm@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tailcalls.c | 418 ++++++++++++++++++ > > Generally it feels like a lot of duplicated code from your previous > fentry/fexit fixes, but I didn't look closely if it would be possible to > pull out something in common. > test_tailcall_hierarchy_count() and test_tailcall_count() are similar. They can combine into test_tailcall_count() with more arguments. Thanks, Leon >> .../bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy1.c | 34 ++ >> .../bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy2.c | 55 +++ >> .../bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy3.c | 46 ++ >> 4 files changed, 553 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy1.c >> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy2.c >> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy3.c >>
