On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 12:34 PM Kuifeng Lee <sinquersw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 10:53 AM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > [ The mailing list got dropped in your reply, so CC back the list ] > > > > On 5/29/24 11:05 PM, Kuifeng Lee wrote: > > > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 2:51 PM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > > >> On 5/24/24 3:30 PM, Kui-Feng Lee wrote: > > >>> @@ -832,11 +865,20 @@ static int bpf_dummy_reg(void *kdata, struct bpf_link *link) > > >>> if (ops->test_2) > > >>> ops->test_2(4, ops->data); > > >>> > > >>> + spin_lock(&detach_lock); > > >>> + if (!link_to_detach) > > >>> + link_to_detach = link; > > >> > > >> bpf_testmod_ops is used in a few different tests now. Can you check if > > >> "./test_progs -j <num_of_parallel_workers>" will work considering link_to_detach > > >> here is the very first registered link. > > > > > > Yes, it works. Since the test in test_struct_ops_modules.c is serial, > > > no other test will > > > be run simultaneously. And its subtests are run one after another. > > > > just did a quick search on "bpf_map__attach_struct_ops", how about the other > > tests like struct_ops_autocreate.c and test_struct_ops_multi_pages.c ? > > Got it! > I will put all these test to serial. WDYT? By the way, even without putting all these tests to serial, it still works. The serial ones will be performed without other tests running at the background. This test is the only test replying to the notification feature so far. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >>> + spin_unlock(&detach_lock); > > >>> + > > >>> return 0; > > >>> } > > >> > >
