On 8/21/2026 8:10 AM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> On Wed, 2026-08-19 at 17:04 +0800, Fuyu Zhao wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kmod_btfs.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,196 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> +#include <test_progs.h>
>> +#include "kmod_btfs.skel.h"
>> +
>> +static bool btf_skipped;
>> +static bool dup_ignored;
>> +
>> +static const char btf_skip_fmt[] =
>> + "libbpf: skipping module BTF '%s', not in kmod_btf_names\n";
>> +static const char dup_ignore_fmt[] =
>> + "libbpf: duplicate kmod BTF name '%s' ignored\n";
>> +
>> +static int libbpf_print_cb(enum libbpf_print_level level, const char *fmt,
>> + va_list args)
>> +{
>> + if (!strcmp(fmt, btf_skip_fmt)) {
>> + if (!strcmp(va_arg(args, char *), "bpf_test_no_cfi"))
>> + btf_skipped = true;
>> + } else if (!strcmp(fmt, dup_ignore_fmt)) {
>> + if (!strcmp(va_arg(args, char *), "bpf_testmod"))
>> + dup_ignored = true;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>
> Idk what Andrii would say about this, but I'd rather add an internal
> function akin to:
>
> size_t bpf_object_btf_module_cnt(const struct bpf_object *obj);
>
> in libbpf.c and expose it via libbpf_internal.h (*not* via API),
> instead of intercepting log messages.
>
> ...
I think your suggestion is better. It also addresses the issue raised by
the bot about potentially hiding other libbpf logs. I'll wait for Andrii's
feedback on this.
Thanks,
Fuyu
