On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 4:03 PM Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> This test runs test_run for raw_tracepoint program. The test covers ctx
> input, retval output, and running on correct cpu.
>
> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxx>
> ---
Few suggestions below, but overall looks good to me:
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@xxxxxx>
> .../bpf/prog_tests/raw_tp_test_run.c | 98 +++++++++++++++++++
> .../bpf/progs/test_raw_tp_test_run.c | 24 +++++
> 2 files changed, 122 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/raw_tp_test_run.c
> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_raw_tp_test_run.c
>
[...]
> +
> + err = bpf_prog_test_run_xattr(&test_attr);
> + CHECK(err == 0, "test_run", "should fail for too small ctx\n");
> +
> + test_attr.ctx_size_in = sizeof(args);
> + err = bpf_prog_test_run_xattr(&test_attr);
> + CHECK(err < 0, "test_run", "err %d\n", errno);
> + CHECK(test_attr.retval != expected_retval, "check_retval",
> + "expect 0x%x, got 0x%x\n", expected_retval, test_attr.retval);
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < nr_online; i++) {
> + if (online[i]) {
if (!online[i])
continue;
That will reduce nestedness by one level
> + DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_test_run_opts, opts,
> + .ctx_in = args,
> + .ctx_size_in = sizeof(args),
> + .flags = BPF_F_TEST_RUN_ON_CPU,
> + .retval = 0,
> + .cpu = i,
> + );
this declares variable, so should be at the top of the lexical scope
> +
> + err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(prog_fd, &opts);
> + CHECK(err < 0, "test_run_opts", "err %d\n", errno);
> + CHECK(skel->data->on_cpu != i, "check_on_cpu",
> + "expect %d got %d\n", i, skel->data->on_cpu);
> + CHECK(opts.retval != expected_retval,
> + "check_retval", "expect 0x%x, got 0x%x\n",
> + expected_retval, opts.retval);
> +
> + if (i == 0) {
I agree that this looks a bit obscure. You can still re-use
DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS, just move it outside the loop. And then you can
just modify it in place to adjust to a particular case. And in log
output, we'll see 30+ similar success messages for the else branch,
which is indeed unnecessary.
> + /* invalid cpu ID should fail with ENXIO */
> + opts.cpu = 0xffffffff;
> + err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(prog_fd, &opts);
> + CHECK(err != -1 || errno != ENXIO,
> + "test_run_opts_fail",
> + "should failed with ENXIO\n");
> + } else {
> + /* non-zero cpu w/o BPF_F_TEST_RUN_ON_CPU
> + * should fail with EINVAL
> + */
> + opts.flags = 0;
> + err = bpf_prog_test_run_opts(prog_fd, &opts);
> + CHECK(err != -1 || errno != EINVAL,
> + "test_run_opts_fail",
> + "should failed with EINVAL\n");
> + }
> + }
> + }
[...]
