Re: [PATCH v8 bpf-next 13/13] selftests/bpf: Add set test to resolve_btfids

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 12:56:02PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 2:15 PM Jiri Olsa [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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

ok

quoted

+               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?

oh yea.. test_set.ids[i] is not found in here

quoted

+               if (ret)
+                       break;
+
+               if (i > 0) {
+                       ret = CHECK(test_set.ids[i - 1] > test_set.ids[i],

nit: >= would be the invalid condition

yes, we actualy allow for same IDs to appear in the set

thanks,
jirka

quoted

+                                   "sort_check",
+                                   "test_set is not sorted\n");
+               }
+       }
+
        return ret;
 }
--
2.25.4