Re: [PATCH bpf-next 10/11] selftests/bpf: add split BTF dedup selftests
From: Song Liu <hidden>
Date: 2020-11-03 06:30:27
Also in:
bpf
On Nov 2, 2020, at 10:05 PM, Andrii Nakryiko [off-list ref] wrote: On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 9:35 PM Song Liu [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
quoted
On Oct 28, 2020, at 5:59 PM, Andrii Nakryiko [off-list ref] wrote: Add selftests validating BTF deduplication for split BTF case. Add a helper macro that allows to validate entire BTF with raw BTF dump, not just type-by-type. This saves tons of code and complexity. Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>Acked-by: Song Liu <redacted> with a couple nits: [...]quoted
int fprintf_btf_type_raw(FILE *out, const struct btf *btf, __u32 id); const char *btf_type_raw_dump(const struct btf *btf, int type_id); +int btf_validate_raw(struct btf *btf, int nr_types, const char *exp_types[]); +#define VALIDATE_RAW_BTF(btf, raw_types...) \ + btf_validate_raw(btf, \ + sizeof((const char *[]){raw_types})/sizeof(void *),\ + (const char *[]){raw_types}) + +const char *btf_type_c_dump(const struct btf *btf); #endifdiff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dedup_split.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dedup_split.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..097370a41b60 --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf_dedup_split.c@@ -0,0 +1,326 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 +/* Copyright (c) 2020 Facebook */ +#include <test_progs.h> +#include <bpf/btf.h> +#include "btf_helpers.h" + + +static void test_split_simple() { + const struct btf_type *t; + struct btf *btf1, *btf2 = NULL; + int str_off, err; + + btf1 = btf__new_empty(); + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(btf1, "empty_main_btf")) + return; + + btf__set_pointer_size(btf1, 8); /* enforce 64-bit arch */ + + btf__add_int(btf1, "int", 4, BTF_INT_SIGNED); /* [1] int */ + btf__add_ptr(btf1, 1); /* [2] ptr to int */ + btf__add_struct(btf1, "s1", 4); /* [3] struct s1 { */ + btf__add_field(btf1, "f1", 1, 0, 0); /* int f1; */ + /* } */ +nit: two empty lines.There is a comment on one of them, so I figured it's not an empty line?
Exactly! I missed that one. [...]