On 8/1/24 10:49, Alan Maguire wrote: > On 31/07/2024 11:38, Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation) wrote: [...] >> +static int wait_local_ip(void) >> +{ >> + char *ping_cmd = ping_command(AF_INET6); >> + int i, err; >> + >> + for (i = 0; i < WAIT_AUTO_IP_MAX_ATTEMPT; i++) { >> + err = SYS_NOFAIL("%s -c 1 -W 1 %s%%%s", ping_cmd, DST_ADDR, >> + VETH_1); >> + if (!err) >> + break; >> + } > > > thinking about the risks of CI flakiness, would a small sleep between > checks be worth doing here? I assumed that adding -W 1 (ping timeout duration) to the command would be enough to make sure that there is a proper wait between each attempt (so currently, waiting at most 10s for network configuration between the 2 veths). Don't you think it is enough to prevent issues in CI ? >> + [...] >> + >> + expected_ids[0] = get_cgroup_id("/.."); /* root cgroup */ >> + expected_ids[1] = get_cgroup_id(""); >> + expected_ids[2] = get_cgroup_id(CGROUP_PATH); >> + expected_ids[3] = 0; /* non-existent cgroup */ >> + >> + for (level = 0; level < NUM_CGROUP_LEVELS; level++) { >> + err = bpf_map__lookup_elem(t->skel->maps.cgroup_ids, &level, >> + sizeof(level), &actual_ids[level], >> + sizeof(__u64), 0); > > could probably simplify this + the BPF prog using a global array of > actual_ids[], then compare it to the expected values using > skel->bss->actual_ids ACK, I'll update this. Thanks, Alexis -- Alexis Lothoré, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com