Re: [PATCH] bpf: selftests: cleanup RLIMIT_MEMLOCK

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

 



> On Mar 21, 2022, at 5:13 PM, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 9:58 AM Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>> On Mar 19, 2022, at 11:08 PM, Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Since we have alread switched to memcg-based memory accouting and control,
>>> we don't need RLIMIT_MEMLOCK any more.
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> RLIMIT_MEMLOCK is still used in bpftool and libbpf, but it may be useful
>>> for backward compatibility, so I don't cleanup them.
>> 
>> Hi Yafang!
>> 
>> As I remember, we haven’t cleaned selftests up with the same logic: it’s nice to be able to run the same version of tests on older kernels.
>> 
> 
> It should be fine, at least for test_progs and test_progs-no_alu32.
> Libbpf now does this automatically if running in "libbpf 1.0" mode.

Didn’t know this, thanks! Do we link all tests with it?

> 
> Yafang, please make sure that all the test binaries you are cleaning
> up have libbpf_set_strict_mode(LIBBPF_STRICT_ALL) (test_progs does
> already). You might need to clean up some SEC() definitions, in case
> we still missed some non-conforming ones, though.

If so, no objections to the patch from my side.

Thank you!



[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