Hi Alexei,
Thank you for your reply!
On 07/05/2024 22:51, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 9:02 AM Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>
> Yeah. Pls don't hide such things in macros.
> Refactor into helper function in normal C.
Sure, we will revert that.
> But, what do you mean "in your tree" ?
> That's your development tree and you plan to send all that
> properly as patches to bpf-next someday?
Yes, correct, we have some WIP patches in MPTCP development tree where
we added a new bpf_struct_ops structure to implement new MPTCP packet
schedulers in BPF. This work was paused for a while because we had to
refine the packet scheduler API, but this task is now ongoing. Hopefully
we will be able to send patches to bpf-next this "soon".
Cheers,
Matt
--
Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund.
