On 8/2/25 08:23, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 8:22 AM Leon Hwang <leon.hwang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> +
>> +static int percpu_array_map_direct_value_meta(const struct bpf_map *map,
>> + u64 imm, u32 *off)
>> +{
>> + struct bpf_array *array = container_of(map, struct bpf_array, map);
>> + u64 base = (u64) array->pptrs[0];
>> + u64 range = array->elem_size;
>> +
>> + if (map->max_entries != 1)
>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> + if (imm < base || imm >= base + range)
>> + return -ENOENT;
>> + if (!bpf_jit_supports_percpu_insn())
>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> +
>> + *off = imm - base;
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>
> Pls add a selftest for off != 0.
> I think the above should work, but this is not obvious.
>
Ack.
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>> + if (insn->code == (BPF_LD | BPF_IMM | BPF_DW) &&
>> + (insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_MAP_VALUE ||
>> + insn->src_reg == BPF_PSEUDO_MAP_IDX_VALUE)) {
>
> Is there a selftest for BPF_PSEUDO_MAP_IDX_VALUE part ?
> I couldn't find it.
Do you mean add a selftest with 'bpftool gen skeleton -L'?
Indeed, it's better to test it.
Thanks,
Leon
