On 19/8/26 00:15, [email protected] wrote: >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/global_data_init.c >> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/global_data_init.c >> index 5671c31085cd..2b69290bcc3e 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/global_data_init.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/global_data_init.c > > [ ... ] > >> @@ -236,6 +223,57 @@ static void test_global_percpu_data_lskel(void) >> test_global_percpu_data_lskel__destroy(lskel); >> } >> >> +#define PAGE_SIZE 4096 >> + >> +static void test_global_percpu_data_map_resize(void) >> +{ >> + const __u32 desired_sz = sysconf(_SC_PAGE_SIZE) * 2; >> + struct test_global_percpu_data *skel; >> + const int arr_value = -1; >> + struct bpf_map *map; >> + int err, prog_fd; >> + size_t data_sz; >> + >> + if (sysconf(_SC_PAGE_SIZE) != PAGE_SIZE) { >> + test__skip(); >> + return; >> + } >> + >> + skel = test_global_percpu_data__open(); >> + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "test_global_percpu_data__open")) >> + return; >> + >> + map = skel->maps.percpu_arr; >> + skel->percpu_arr->arr[0] = arr_value; >> + err = bpf_map__set_value_size(map, desired_sz); > > This isn't a bug, but since the guard above already pins the page size to > 4096, would `const __u32 desired_sz = PAGE_SIZE * 2;` read more directly
Will change to 'PAGE_SIZE * 2' if the next revision is needed. > here - and is the unguarded `#define PAGE_SIZE 4096` preferable to the > `#ifndef PAGE_SIZE` form used in sockopt.c? No. PAGE_SIZE must be 4096 here. > >> + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "bpf_map__set_value_size")) >> + goto out; >> + if (!ASSERT_EQ(bpf_map__value_size(map), desired_sz, >> "bpf_map__value_size")) >> + goto out; >> + if (!ASSERT_NEQ(bpf_map__btf_value_type_id(map), 0, >> "bpf_map__btf_value_type_id")) >> + goto out; >> + >> + skel->percpu_arr = bpf_map__initial_value(map, &data_sz); >> + if (!ASSERT_EQ(data_sz, desired_sz, "data_sz")) >> + goto out; >> + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel->percpu_arr, "skel->percpu_arr")) >> + goto out; > > This isn't a bug, but would it read more consistently with > test_global_percpu_data_init() to check ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel->percpu_arr) > before ASSERT_EQ(data_sz, desired_sz)? The block this replaces checked > pointer-then-size, and the surviving test_global_percpu_data_init() at the > same file still does pointer-then-size. Unnecessary to keep consistent for their order. This is a really minor readability concern. Thanks, Leon
