Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/5] selftests/bpf: Add test for "bpftool feature" command

On 2/21/20 12:28 PM, Quentin Monnet wrote:>> +    def
test_feature_macros(self):

quoted

+        expected_patterns = [
+            b"/\*\*\* System call availability \*\*\*/",
+            b"#define HAVE_BPF_SYSCALL",
+            b"/\*\*\* eBPF program types \*\*\*/",
+            b"#define HAVE.*PROG_TYPE",
+            b"/\*\*\* eBPF map types \*\*\*/",
+            b"#define HAVE.*MAP_TYPE",
+            b"/\*\*\* eBPF helper functions \*\*\*/",
+            b"#define HAVE.*HELPER",
+            b"/\*\*\* eBPF misc features \*\*\*/",
+        ]
+
+        res = bpftool(["feature", "probe", "macros"])
+        for pattern in expected_patterns:
+            self.assertRegex(res, pattern)

Could we have (or did I miss it?) a test that compares the output of
probes _with_ "full" and _without_ it, to make sure that the only lines
that differ are about "bpf_trace_prink" or "bpf_probe_write_user"? Could
help determine if we filter out too many elements by mistake.

Thanks,
Quentin

Good idea, I will add that test in v3.