On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 3:55 PM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2024-02-28 at 15:43 -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> [...]
>
> > > +static void can_load_partial_object(void)
> > > +{
> > > + DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_object_open_opts, opts);
> >
> > nit: prefer LIBBPF_OPTS() over DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS()
>
> Ok
>
> [...]
>
> > > +void serial_test_struct_ops_autocreate(void)
> >
> > same as in the previous patch, why serial?
>
> Because of the print callback hijacking.
> Also, what would happen when two tests would set struct_ops for same
> attachment point?
I'm not sure, Martin?
But if this is a problem, then perhaps it's best to combine all
struct_ops tests that use bpf_testmod into a single test as multiple
subtests. And this use non-serial overall test approach.
>
> [...]
>
> > > +SEC(".struct_ops.link")
> >
> > can you please also have a test where we use SEC("?.struct_ops.link")
> > which set autoload to false by default?
>
> As far as I understand, that would be a new behavior, currently '?'
> works only for programs. I'll add a separate patch to support this.
>
Yep, thanks!
> [...]
