Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/4] selftests/bpf: Add RUN_MPTCP_TEST macro

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

 



Hi Alexei,

Thank you for the review!

On 07/05/2024 16:44, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 3:53 AM Matthieu Baerts (NGI0)
> <matttbe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> From: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Each MPTCP subtest tests test__start_subtest(suffix), then invokes
>> test_suffix(). It makes sense to add a new macro RUN_MPTCP_TEST to
>> simpolify the code.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Mat Martineau <martineau@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c | 12 ++++++++----
>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
>> index baf976a7a1dd..9d1b255bb654 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
>> @@ -347,10 +347,14 @@ static void test_mptcpify(void)
>>         close(cgroup_fd);
>>  }
>>
>> +#define RUN_MPTCP_TEST(suffix)                                 \
>> +do {                                                           \
>> +       if (test__start_subtest(#suffix))                       \
>> +               test_##suffix();                                \
>> +} while (0)
> 
> Please no.
> Don't hide it behind macros.

I understand, I'm personally not a big fan of hiding code being a macro
too. This one saves only one line. Geliang added a few more tests in our
tree [1], for a total of 9, so that's only saving 9 lines.

Related to that, if you don't mind, Geliang also added another macro --
MPTCP_SCHED_TEST -- for tests that are currently only in our tree [2]
(not ready yet). We asked him to reduce the size of this macro to the
minimum. We accepted it because it removed quite a lot of similar code
with very small differences [3]. Do you think we should revert this
modification too?

[1]
https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/blob/4369d9cbd752e166961ac0db7f85886111606301/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c#L578-L595

[2]
https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/blob/4369d9cbd752e166961ac0db7f85886111606301/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c#L559-L576

[3]
https://lore.kernel.org/mptcp/cover.1713321357.git.tanggeliang@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#m0b9c14f1cbae8653c6fd119f6b71d1797961d6ba

Cheers,
Matt
-- 
Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund.





[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