On Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 11:05 PM Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 9/10/24 13:04, Eduard Zingerman wrote: > > On Wed, 2024-10-09 at 00:13 +0800, Leon Hwang wrote: > >> cd tools/testing/selftests/bpf; ./test_progs -t tailcalls > >> 335/27 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_freplace_1:OK > >> 335/28 tailcalls/tailcall_bpf2bpf_hierarchy_freplace_2:OK > >> 335 tailcalls:OK > >> Summary: 1/28 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@xxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > > > > Tbh, I don't think these tests are necessary. > > Patch #2 already covers changes in patch #1. > > > > [...] > > > > You are right. > > I should provide the commit message to tell the reason why to add these > two test cases: > > In order to confirm tailcall in freplace is OK and won't be broken by > patch of preventing tailcall infinite loop caused by freplace or other > patches in the future, add two test cases to confirm that freplace is OK > to tail call itself or other freplace prog, even if the target prog of > freplace is a subprog and the subprog is called many times in its caller. Not following. What's the point of adding more tests when patch 2 covers the cases already?
