On 14/8/26 00:26, [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 8466332d7406f..06d163a022dcc 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/global_data_init.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/global_data_init.c
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> @@ -60,3 +63,188 @@ void test_global_data_init(void)
>> free(newval);
>> bpf_object__close(obj);
>> }
>> +
>> +static void test_percpu_data_on_cpus(struct bpf_map *map, int map_fd, int
>> prog_fd, int *runp)
>> +{
>> + struct test_global_percpu_data__percpu *data = NULL;
>> + int i, err, key = 0, num_online, run = 0;
>> + __u64 args[2] = {0x1234ULL, 0x5678ULL};
>> + size_t data_sz;
>> + bool *online;
>> + LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_test_run_opts, topts,
>> + .ctx_in = args,
>> + .ctx_size_in = sizeof(args),
>> + .flags = BPF_F_TEST_RUN_ON_CPU,
>> + );
>
> This isn't a bug, but does the raw_tp ctx need to be passed here, given
> the program ignores it?
Good catch.
Will drop the 'args'.
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> +static void test_global_percpu_data_init(void)
>> +{
>> + struct test_global_percpu_data__percpu init_value = {};
>> + struct test_global_percpu_data__percpu *init_data;
>> + const __u32 desired_sz = sysconf(_SC_PAGE_SIZE);
>> + struct test_global_percpu_data *skel = NULL;
>> + size_t init_data_sz;
>> + struct bpf_map *map;
>> + int prog_fd, err;
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> + map = skel->maps.percpu;
>> + if (!ASSERT_EQ(bpf_map__type(map), BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERCPU_ARRAY,
>> "bpf_map__type"))
>> + goto out;
>> +
>> + init_value.data = 2;
>> + init_value.nums[6] = -1;
>> + init_value.struct_data.i = 2;
>> + init_value.struct_data.nums[6] = -1;
>> + err = bpf_map__set_initial_value(map, &init_value, sizeof(init_value));
>> + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "bpf_map__set_initial_value"))
>> + goto out;
>> +
>> + init_data = bpf_map__initial_value(map, &init_data_sz);
>> + if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(init_data, "bpf_map__initial_value"))
>> + goto out;
>> +
>> + ASSERT_EQ(init_data->data, init_value.data, "init_value data");
>> + ASSERT_EQ(init_data->set, init_value.set, "init_value set");
>> + ASSERT_EQ(init_data->struct_data.i, init_value.struct_data.i,
>> "init_value struct_data.i");
>> + ASSERT_EQ(init_data->struct_data.nums[6],
>> init_value.struct_data.nums[6],
>> + "init_value struct_data.nums[6]");
>
> This isn't a bug, but should init_value.set be given a non-zero value,
> and nums[6] checked, so these assertions can actually distinguish a broken
> copy?
Will update 'init_value.set = 1;' and check 'nums[6]'.
Thanks,
Leon
