> On Sep 25, 2020, at 10:31 AM, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
OK.. 2:1, I will change this in v6.
Thanks,
Song
