On 2022/6/4 5:05, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 1:58 AM Pu Lehui <pulehui@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:We have unified data extension operation of jited_ksyms and jited_linfo into zero extension, so there's no need to cast u64 memory address to long data type. Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@xxxxxxxxxx> --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c | 14 +++++++------- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c index e6612f2bd0cf..65bdc4aa0a63 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c @@ -6599,8 +6599,8 @@ static int test_get_linfo(const struct prog_info_raw_test *test, } if (CHECK(jited_linfo[0] != jited_ksyms[0], - "jited_linfo[0]:%lx != jited_ksyms[0]:%lx", - (long)(jited_linfo[0]), (long)(jited_ksyms[0]))) { + "jited_linfo[0]:%llx != jited_ksyms[0]:%llx", + jited_linfo[0], jited_ksyms[0])) {__u64 is not always printed with %lld, on some platforms it is actually %ld, so to avoid compiler warnings we just cast them to long long or unsigned long long (and then %lld or %llu is fine). So please update this part here and below.
I found that __u64 in ppc64 actually is defined to be unsigned long. I will update it. Thanks.
err = -1; goto done; } @@ -6618,16 +6618,16 @@ static int test_get_linfo(const struct prog_info_raw_test *test, } if (CHECK(jited_linfo[i] <= jited_linfo[i - 1], - "jited_linfo[%u]:%lx <= jited_linfo[%u]:%lx", - i, (long)jited_linfo[i], - i - 1, (long)(jited_linfo[i - 1]))) { + "jited_linfo[%u]:%llx <= jited_linfo[%u]:%llx", + i, jited_linfo[i], + i - 1, jited_linfo[i - 1])) { err = -1; goto done; } if (CHECK(jited_linfo[i] - cur_func_ksyms > cur_func_len, - "jited_linfo[%u]:%lx - %lx > %u", - i, (long)jited_linfo[i], (long)cur_func_ksyms, + "jited_linfo[%u]:%llx - %llx > %u", + i, jited_linfo[i], cur_func_ksyms, cur_func_len)) { err = -1; goto done; -- 2.25.1.
