On 10/10/24 08:59, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > 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? It's to test cases about tailcall in freplace. But it seems unnecessary to add them. I'll drop this patch. Thanks, Leon
