Re: [PATCH bpf-next 5/5] selftests/bpf: Remove the casting about jited_ksyms and jited_linfo
From: Yonghong Song <hidden>
Date: 2022-07-17 01:47:32
Also in:
bpf, lkml
On 7/16/22 5:51 AM, Pu Lehui wrote:
We have unified data extension operation of jited_ksyms and jited_linfo into zero extension, so there's no need to cast u64 memory address to long data type.
For subject, we are not 'Remove the casting ...'. What the code did is to change the casting. Also, I don't understand the above commit message. What does this mean about 'data extension operation of jited_ksyms and jited_linfo into zero extension'? In prog_tests/btf.c, we have a few other places to cast jited_linfo[...]/jited_ksyms[...] to 'long' type. Maybe casting to 'unsigned long' is a better choice. Casting to 'unsigned long long' of course will work, but is it necessary? Or you are talking about 64bit kernel and 32bit user space?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com> --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c | 16 +++++++++------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c index e852a9df779d..db10fa1745d1 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c@@ -6613,8 +6613,9 @@ static int test_get_linfo(const struct prog_info_raw_test *test, } if (CHECK(jited_linfo[0] != jited_ksyms[0], - "jited_linfo[0]:%lx != jited_ksyms[0]:%lx", - (long)(jited_linfo[0]), (long)(jited_ksyms[0]))) { + "jited_linfo[0]:%llx != jited_ksyms[0]:%llx", + (unsigned long long)(jited_linfo[0]), + (unsigned long long)(jited_ksyms[0]))) { err = -1; goto done; }@@ -6632,16 +6633,17 @@ static int test_get_linfo(const struct prog_info_raw_test *test, } if (CHECK(jited_linfo[i] <= jited_linfo[i - 1], - "jited_linfo[%u]:%lx <= jited_linfo[%u]:%lx", - i, (long)jited_linfo[i], - i - 1, (long)(jited_linfo[i - 1]))) { + "jited_linfo[%u]:%llx <= jited_linfo[%u]:%llx", + i, (unsigned long long)jited_linfo[i], + i - 1, (unsigned long long)(jited_linfo[i - 1]))) { err = -1; goto done; } if (CHECK(jited_linfo[i] - cur_func_ksyms > cur_func_len, - "jited_linfo[%u]:%lx - %lx > %u", - i, (long)jited_linfo[i], (long)cur_func_ksyms, + "jited_linfo[%u]:%llx - %llx > %u", + i, (unsigned long long)jited_linfo[i], + (unsigned long long)cur_func_ksyms, cur_func_len)) { err = -1; goto done;