On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 6:49 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 05, 2022 at 01:20:42PM -0800, Yonghong Song wrote:
> >
> > On 3/4/22 11:16 AM, Hao Luo wrote:
[...]
> > > ---
> > > .../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c | 17 ++
> > > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_tag.c | 164 ++++++++++++++----
> > > .../selftests/bpf/progs/btf_type_tag_percpu.c | 66 +++++++
> > > 3 files changed, 218 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
> > > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/btf_type_tag_percpu.c
[...]
> > > +noinline int
> > > +bpf_testmod_test_btf_type_tag_percpu_1(struct bpf_testmod_btf_type_tag_1 __percpu *arg) {
> > > + BTF_TYPE_EMIT(func_proto_typedef);
> > > + BTF_TYPE_EMIT(func_proto_typedef_nested1);
> > > + BTF_TYPE_EMIT(func_proto_typedef_nested2);
> >
> > Are these necessary? They have been defined in
> > bpf_testmod_test_btf_type_tag_user_1().
>
> Yonghong,
> Thanks. Good catch. I've removed those while applying.
>
Thanks Yonghong and Alexei. I wasn't sure their purpose and not sure
whether I should include them, so copy-pasted it.
> Hao,
> Great work.
> I really liked how patch 3 discovers MEM_PERCPU flag from
> two sources: percpu_datasec and clang tag.
Thanks Alexei! The BTF infrastructure together with clang tag is
really amazing! [thumbs up]
