On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 6:05 AM Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 10:44 PM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Add selftests for the newly added bits iter. > > - bits_iter_success > > - percpu data extracted from the percpu struct should be expected > > - RCU lock is not required > > - It is fine without calling bpf_iter_cpumask_next() > > - It can work as expected when invalid arguments are passed > > > > - bits_iter_failure > > - bpf_iter_bits_destroy() is required after calling > > bpf_iter_bits_new() > > - bpf_iter_bits_destroy() can only destroy an initialized iter > > - bpf_iter_bits_next() must use an initialized iter > > > > This test case can't work correctly on s390x for unknonw reason, thus it > > is added to DENYLIST.s390x. > > That's an unusual way of handling "doesn't work for unknown reason" :) > This might be an endianness issue I pointed out in patch #1. > > pw-bot: cr Thanks for your reminder. will check it. -- Regards Yafang
