[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQ+20NcPHKYyMpAYr6SQ2fuvr4yqu5eiY90hL8J9-t1L9w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 14:23:15 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 17/18] selftests/bpf: add map linking selftest
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:54 AM Yonghong Song <yhs@...com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/23/21 11:13 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > Add selftest validating various aspects of statically linking BTF-defined map
> > definitions. Legacy map definitions do not support extern resolution between
> > object files. Some of the aspects validated:
> > - correct resolution of extern maps against concrete map definitions;
> > - extern maps can currently only specify map type and key/value size and/or
> > type information;
> > - weak concrete map definitions are resolved properly.
> >
> > Static map definitions are not yet supported by libbpf, so they are not
> > explicitly tested, though manual testing showes that BPF linker handles them
> > properly.
> >
> > Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
> > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
> [...]
> > +
> > +SEC("raw_tp/sys_exit")
> > +int BPF_PROG(handler_exit1)
> > +{
> > + /* lookup values with key = 2, set in another file */
> > + int key = 2, *val;
> > + struct my_key key_struct = { .x = 2 };
> > + struct my_value *value_struct;
> > +
> > + value_struct = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&map1, &key_struct);
> > + if (value_struct)
> > + output_first1 = value_struct->x;
> > +
> > + val = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&map2, &key);
> > + if (val)
> > + output_second1 = *val;
> > +
> > + val = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&map_weak, &key);
> > + if (val)
> > + output_weak1 = *val;
> > +
>
> There is an extra tab in the above line. There is no need for new
> revision just for this. If no new revision is needed, maybe
> the maintainer can help fix it.
Sorry. I applied without it. Pls fold the fix in some of the future patches.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists