On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 5:49 AM Artem Savkov <asavkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> This test relies on bpf_testmod, so skip it if the module is not available.
>
> Fixes: aa3d65de4b900 ("bpf/selftests: Test fentry attachment to shadowed functions")
> Signed-off-by: Artem Savkov <asavkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> .../testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_fentry_shadow.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_fentry_shadow.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_fentry_shadow.c
> index c7636e18b1ebd..cdd55e5340dec 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_fentry_shadow.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/module_fentry_shadow.c
> @@ -61,6 +61,11 @@ void test_module_fentry_shadow(void)
> int link_fd[2] = {};
> __s32 btf_id[2] = {};
>
> + if (!env.has_testmod) {
> + test__skip();
> + return;
> + }
> +
you used spaces for indentation, please don't do that. It was also
obvious if you looked at patchworks status ([0]). I fixed it up while
applying, but keep this in mind for the future. Thanks.
[0] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20230914124928.340701-1-asavkov@xxxxxxxxxx/
> LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_prog_load_opts, load_opts,
> .expected_attach_type = BPF_TRACE_FENTRY,
> );
> --
> 2.41.0
>
