Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 12:57 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Extend the fexit_bpf2bpf test to check that the info for the bpf_link
>> returned by the kernel matches the expected values.
>>
>> While we're updating the test, change existing uses of CHEC() to use the
>> much easier to read ASSERT_*() macros.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>
> Just a minor nit below. Looks good, thanks.
>
> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fexit_bpf2bpf.c | 50 +++++++++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fexit_bpf2bpf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fexit_bpf2bpf.c
>> index 5c0448910426..019a46d8e98e 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fexit_bpf2bpf.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/fexit_bpf2bpf.c
>> @@ -57,11 +57,13 @@ static void test_fexit_bpf2bpf_common(const char *obj_file,
>> bool run_prog,
>> test_cb cb)
>> {
>> + __u32 duration = 0, retval, tgt_prog_id, info_len;
>
> if not CHECK() is used, duration shouldn't be needed anymore
Oh, and duration is still needed for bpf_prog_test_run(), so I'll keep
that; but removing it did make the compiler point out that I missed one
CHECK() at the beginning of the function when converting, so will fix
that instead :)
-Toke
