Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/3] selftests/bpf: Use cpu_number only on arches that have it

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 4:03 AM Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2021-10-12 at 05:56 +0200, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 4:51 AM Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > cpu_number exists only on Intel and aarch64, so skip the test
> > > involing
> > > it on other arches. An alternative would be to replace it with an
> > > exported non-ifdefed primitive-typed percpu variable from the
> > > common
> > > code, but there appears to be none.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c | 2 ++
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c
> > > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c
> > > index 87f9df653e4e..12f457b6786d 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dump.c
> > > @@ -778,8 +778,10 @@ static void test_btf_dump_struct_data(struct
> > > btf *btf, struct btf_dump *d,
> > >  static void test_btf_dump_var_data(struct btf *btf, struct
> > > btf_dump *d,
> > >                                    char *str)
> > >  {
> > > +#if defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__) ||
> > > defined(__aarch64__)
> > >         TEST_BTF_DUMP_VAR(btf, d, NULL, str, "cpu_number", int,
> > > BTF_F_COMPACT,
> > >                           "int cpu_number = (int)100", 100);
> > > +#endif
> >
> > We are in the talks about supporting cross-compilation of selftests,
> > and this will be just another breakage that we'll have to undo.
>
> Why would this break? Cross-compilation should define these macros
> based on target, not build system.

Ok, then it should be good.

>
> > Can we find some other variable that will be available on all
> > architectures? Maybe "runqueues"?
>
> Wouldn't runqueues be pointless? We already have cpu_profile_flip. I
> thought the idea here was to have something marked with
> EXPORT_PER_CPU_SYMBOL.

No idea what the idea was, tbh.

>
> > >         TEST_BTF_DUMP_VAR(btf, d, NULL, str, "cpu_profile_flip",
> > > int, BTF_F_COMPACT,
> > >                           "static int cpu_profile_flip = (int)2",
> > > 2);
> > >  }
> > > --
> > > 2.31.1
>



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux