On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 07:27:47PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 1:12 PM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > We have currently 2 uprobes and 2 uretprobes and we are about
> > to add sessions uprobes in following change, which makes the
> > test time unsuitable for CI even with threads.
> >
> > It's enough for the test to have just 1 uprobe and 1 uretprobe.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > .../bpf/prog_tests/uprobe_multi_test.c | 57 ++++++++-----------
> > .../bpf/progs/uprobe_multi_consumers.c | 16 +-----
> > 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
> >
>
> [...]
>
> > /* 'before' is each, we attach uprobe for every set idx */
> > - for (idx = 0; idx < 4; idx++) {
> > + for (idx = 0; idx < 1; idx++) {
> > if (test_bit(idx, before)) {
> > if (!ASSERT_OK(uprobe_attach(skel, idx), "uprobe_attach_before"))
> > goto cleanup;
> > @@ -866,18 +858,18 @@ static int consumer_test(struct uprobe_multi_consumers *skel,
> > if (!ASSERT_EQ(err, 0, "uprobe_consumer_test"))
> > goto cleanup;
> >
> > - for (idx = 0; idx < 4; idx++) {
> > + for (idx = 0; idx < 1; idx++) {
>
> here and everywhere else, either idx <= 1 or idx < 2, no?
right, it's changed in the next patch that adds session support,
I guess I'll combine them as you suggested in the other email
jirka
>
> > const char *fmt = "BUG";
> > __u64 val = 0;
> >
> > - if (idx < 2) {
> > + if (idx == 0) {
> > /*
> > * uprobe entry
> > * +1 if define in 'before'
> > */
> > if (test_bit(idx, before))
> > val++;
> > - fmt = "prog 0/1: uprobe";
> > + fmt = "prog 0: uprobe";
> > } else {
> > /*
> > * to trigger uretprobe consumer, the uretprobe needs to be installed,
>
> [...]
