Hi Eduard, On Mon, 2024-07-08 at 12:42 -0700, Eduard Zingerman wrote: > On Fri, 2024-07-05 at 10:38 +0800, Geliang Tang wrote: > > [...] > > I think that this patch is an improvement independent of the patch- > set. > Please submit it separately. > > > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_tcp_ca.c | 16 > > ++++++++++++---- > > [...] > > > @@ -489,6 +494,7 @@ static void test_mixed_links(void) > > ASSERT_ERR(err, "update_map"); > > > > bpf_link__destroy(link); > > +err: > > Nit: there are two links in this test, but ASSERT_OK_PTR is added > only > for a single one. Also note that bpf_link__destroy(NULL) works > just fine, so it is possible to initialize links as NULL and > make > a jump to cleanup block w/o peeking exact position within that > block. Thanks for your review. I sent a set named "BPF selftests misc fixes" yesterday to address your comments. But reconsider it. I think here checking the first link (link_nl) is enough. We can keep the second link as it. I changed "BPF selftests misc fixes" as "Changes Requested". Thanks, -Geliang > > > bpf_link__destroy(link_nl); > > tcp_ca_update__destroy(skel); > > } > > [...] >
