Re: [PATCH v8 bpf-next 13/13] selftests/bpf: Add set test to resolve_btfids
From: Andrii Nakryiko <hidden>
Date: 2020-07-28 19:56:15
Also in:
bpf
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 2:15 PM Jiri Olsa [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Adding test to for sets resolve_btfids. We're checking that testing set gets properly resolved and sorted. Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org> --- .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/resolve_btfids.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+)diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/resolve_btfids.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/resolve_btfids.c index 101785b49f7e..cc90aa244285 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/resolve_btfids.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/resolve_btfids.c@@ -48,6 +48,15 @@ BTF_ID(struct, S) BTF_ID(union, U) BTF_ID(func, func) +BTF_SET_START(test_set) +BTF_ID(typedef, S) +BTF_ID(typedef, T) +BTF_ID(typedef, U) +BTF_ID(struct, S) +BTF_ID(union, U) +BTF_ID(func, func) +BTF_SET_END(test_set) + static int __resolve_symbol(struct btf *btf, int type_id) {@@ -126,5 +135,29 @@ int test_resolve_btfids(void) } } + /* Check BTF_SET_START(test_set) IDs */ + for (i = 0; i < test_set.cnt && !ret; i++) {
nit: usual we just do `goto err_out;` instead of complicating exit condition in a for loop
+ bool found = false;
+
+ for (j = 0; j < ARRAY_SIZE(test_symbols); j++) {
+ if (test_symbols[j].id != test_set.ids[i])
+ continue;
+ found = true;
+ break;
+ }
+
+ ret = CHECK(!found, "id_check",
+ "ID %d for %s not found in test_symbols\n",
+ test_symbols[j].id, test_symbols[j].name);j == ARRAY_SIZE(test_symbols), you probably meant to get test_set.ids[i] instead of test_symbol name/id?
+ if (ret)
+ break;
+
+ if (i > 0) {
+ ret = CHECK(test_set.ids[i - 1] > test_set.ids[i],nit: >= would be the invalid condition
+ "sort_check",
+ "test_set is not sorted\n");
+ }
+ }
+
return ret;
}
--
2.25.4