On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 9:19 PM Leon Hwang <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 16/6/26 05:29, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > On Mon Jun 15, 2026 at 8:26 AM PDT, Leon Hwang wrote: > [...] > >> + ASSERT_EQ(ld_imm64_xlated[0].code, ld_imm64_raw[0].code, "ld_imm64 > >> opcode"); > >> + ASSERT_TRUE(ld_imm64_xlated[0].dst_reg == ld_imm64_raw[0].dst_reg, > >> "ld_imm64 dst_reg"); > >> + /* > >> + * The xlated instruction has the map ID in imm and the offset > >> + * in the next instruction's imm. The raw instruction just has > >> + * the offset in its imm. > >> + */ > >> + ASSERT_EQ(ld_imm64_xlated[1].imm, ld_imm64_to_u64(ld_imm64_raw), > >> "ld_imm64 off"); > >> + > >> + mov64_percpu_reg = BPF_MOV64_PERCPU_REG(ld_imm64_raw[0].dst_reg, > >> ld_imm64_raw[0].dst_reg); > >> + ASSERT_MEMEQ(&insns[idx + 2], &mov64_percpu_reg, insn_sz, > >> "mov64_percpu_reg"); > > > > If the point of the test was to check that > > percpu_array_map_direct_value_meta() > > computes 'off' correctly then it failed to achieve that goal. > > It was to check the 'off' and the mov64_percpu_reg insn. > > To avoid relying on the insns loaded from ELF obj, use raw insns to > check the 'off' with a percpu_array map: > > struct bpf_insn raw_insns[] = { > BPF_LD_MAP_VALUE(BPF_REG_1, 0, 0), > BPF_LDX_MEM(BPF_W, BPF_REG_0, BPF_REG_1, 0), > BPF_EXIT_INSN(), > }; > > skel = test_global_percpu_data__open_and_load(); > exp_off = offsetof(struct test_global_percpu_data__percpu, > struct_data.nums[6]); > raw_insns[0].imm = bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.percpu); > raw_insns[1].imm = exp_off; > > prog_fd = bpf_prog_load(...); > err = get_xlated_program(prog_fd, &insns, &cnt); > idx = find_percpu_ld_imm64(insns, cnt); > > ASSERT_EQ(insns[idx + 1].imm, exp_off, "exp_off"); > > Would this achieve that goal?
Hmm. There is nothing like that in the patch. What are you talking about? Some future improvement to the patch? My question was about the patch you posted. What was the point of it?
