On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 02:16:09AM IST, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote: > On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 02:03:49AM IST, Song Liu wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 5:29 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Also, avoid using CO-RE features, as lskel doesn't support CO-RE, yet. > > > Create a file for testing libbpf skeleton as well, so that both > > > gen_loader and libbpf get tested. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@xxxxxxxxx> > > [...] > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms_weak_libbpf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms_weak_libbpf.c > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 000000000000..b75725e28647 > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/ksyms_weak_libbpf.c > > > @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > > + > > > +#include <test_progs.h> > > > +#include "test_ksyms_weak.skel.h" > > > + > > > +void test_ksyms_weak_libbpf(void) > > > > This is (almost?) the same as test_weak_syms(), right? Why do we need both? > > > > One includes lskel.h (light skeleton), the other includes skel.h (libbpf > skeleton). Trying to include both in the same file, it ends up redefining the > same struct. I am not sure whether adding a prefix/suffix to light skeleton > struct names is possible now, maybe through another option to bpftool in > addition to name? Sorry, I misremembered. The name option is enough, it is because of how I did it in the Makefile (using LSKELS_EXTRA). I'll fix this in the next spin. > [...] -- Kartikeya
