On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 6:53 AM Yuntao Wang <ytcoode@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Currently, when we run test_progs with just executable file name, for > example 'PATH=. test_progs-no_alu32', cd_flavor_subdir() will not check First time seeing this PATH=. trick just to avoid ./test_progs-no_alu32, but sure, the fix makes sense. Applied to bpf-next. > if test_progs is running as a flavored test runner and switch into > corresponding sub-directory. > > This will cause test_progs-no_alu32 executed by the > 'PATH=. test_progs-no_alu32' command to run in the wrong directory and > load the wrong BPF objects. > > Signed-off-by: Yuntao Wang <ytcoode@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c | 6 ++++-- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c > index 2ecb73a65206..0a4b45d7b515 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c > @@ -761,8 +761,10 @@ int cd_flavor_subdir(const char *exec_name) > const char *flavor = strrchr(exec_name, '/'); > > if (!flavor) > - return 0; > - flavor++; > + flavor = exec_name; > + else > + flavor++; > + > flavor = strrchr(flavor, '-'); > if (!flavor) > return 0; > -- > 2.35.1 >
