On Thu, Oct 8, 2026 at 7:11 AM Yosry Ahmed <[email protected]> wrote: > Seems like both of these tests do not mount bpffs, but rely on its > existence. If it's generally expected that bpffs is mounted when the > tests are run, should we drop the mounting code here instead? > > Alternatively, should we have a common helper for creating directories > in bpffs that mounts it if it isn't already there?
Thanks for the review. Looking further, the bpffs is mounted in the wrong place: setup_bpffs() runs before setup_cgroups() moves the test into a private mount namespace, so the bpffs lands in the namespace shared with the other tests, and cleanup_bpffs() can't unmount it from the private one. The BPF CI bot pointed that out as well. v2 sets up the cgroups first, so that the bpffs is mounted in the private mount namespace. The test keeps working where no bpffs is mounted, and it no longer affects any other test, so neither dropping the mount nor a common helper is needed for this. I kept your Reviewed-by on the unmount fix, whose code didn't change. v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20261009-selftests-bpf-cgroup-stats-bpffs-v2-0-f93a111da...@gmail.com Thanks, Qiliang
