Davide Caratti <dcara...@redhat.com> writes: > Test d959: Add cBPF action with valid bytecode > Test f84a: Add cBPF action with invalid bytecode > Test e939: Add eBPF action with valid object-file > Test d819: Replace cBPF bytecode and action control > Test 6ae3: Delete cBPF action > Test 3e0d: List cBPF actions > Test 55ce: Flush BPF actions > Test ccc3: Add cBPF action with duplicate index > > Signed-off-by: Davide Caratti <dcara...@redhat.com> > --- > .../selftests/tc-testing/tc-tests/actions/bpf.json | 215 > +++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 215 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 > tools/testing/selftests/tc-testing/tc-tests/actions/bpf.json > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/tc-testing/tc-tests/actions/bpf.json > b/tools/testing/selftests/tc-testing/tc-tests/actions/bpf.json > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..0295a63dd0c8
[...] Davide, thank you for efforts. Please also add a test for testing max index value (since it is u32 type) and a test with cookie (every action may have optional 128-bit value, that carries some user state and not intepreted by the kernel).
