| Message ID | 20220716125108.1011206-6-pulehui@huawei.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | BPF |
| Headers | show |
| Series | cleanup for data casting | expand |
On 7/16/22 5:51 AM, Pu Lehui wrote: > We have unified data extension operation of jited_ksyms and jited_linfo > into zero extension, so there's no need to cast u64 memory address to > long data type. For subject, we are not 'Remove the casting ...'. What the code did is to change the casting. Also, I don't understand the above commit message. What does this mean about 'data extension operation of jited_ksyms and jited_linfo into zero extension'? In prog_tests/btf.c, we have a few other places to cast jited_linfo[...]/jited_ksyms[...] to 'long' type. Maybe casting to 'unsigned long' is a better choice. Casting to 'unsigned long long' of course will work, but is it necessary? Or you are talking about 64bit kernel and 32bit user space? > > Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c | 16 +++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c > index e852a9df779d..db10fa1745d1 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c > @@ -6613,8 +6613,9 @@ static int test_get_linfo(const struct prog_info_raw_test *test, > } > > if (CHECK(jited_linfo[0] != jited_ksyms[0], > - "jited_linfo[0]:%lx != jited_ksyms[0]:%lx", > - (long)(jited_linfo[0]), (long)(jited_ksyms[0]))) { > + "jited_linfo[0]:%llx != jited_ksyms[0]:%llx", > + (unsigned long long)(jited_linfo[0]), > + (unsigned long long)(jited_ksyms[0]))) { > err = -1; > goto done; > } > @@ -6632,16 +6633,17 @@ static int test_get_linfo(const struct prog_info_raw_test *test, > } > > if (CHECK(jited_linfo[i] <= jited_linfo[i - 1], > - "jited_linfo[%u]:%lx <= jited_linfo[%u]:%lx", > - i, (long)jited_linfo[i], > - i - 1, (long)(jited_linfo[i - 1]))) { > + "jited_linfo[%u]:%llx <= jited_linfo[%u]:%llx", > + i, (unsigned long long)jited_linfo[i], > + i - 1, (unsigned long long)(jited_linfo[i - 1]))) { > err = -1; > goto done; > } > > if (CHECK(jited_linfo[i] - cur_func_ksyms > cur_func_len, > - "jited_linfo[%u]:%lx - %lx > %u", > - i, (long)jited_linfo[i], (long)cur_func_ksyms, > + "jited_linfo[%u]:%llx - %llx > %u", > + i, (unsigned long long)jited_linfo[i], > + (unsigned long long)cur_func_ksyms, > cur_func_len)) { > err = -1; > goto done;
On 2022/7/17 9:46, Yonghong Song wrote: > > > On 7/16/22 5:51 AM, Pu Lehui wrote: >> We have unified data extension operation of jited_ksyms and jited_linfo >> into zero extension, so there's no need to cast u64 memory address to >> long data type. > > For subject, we are not 'Remove the casting ...'. What the code did is > to change the casting. > > Also, I don't understand the above commit message. What does this mean > about 'data extension operation of jited_ksyms and jited_linfo into zero > extension'? > > In prog_tests/btf.c, we have a few other places to cast > jited_linfo[...]/jited_ksyms[...] to 'long' type. Maybe casting > to 'unsigned long' is a better choice. Casting to 'unsigned long long' > of course will work, but is it necessary? Or you are talking about > 64bit kernel and 32bit user space? > Hi Yonghong, Thanks for your review. We introduced riscv jited line info in series [0], and we found that 32-bit systems can not display bpf line info due to the inconsistent data extension between jited_ksyms and jited_linfo. And we finally unify them to zero extension. By the way, we cleanup the related code. jited_ksyms and jited_linfo both are u64 address, no need to casting to long, and we previously remove it. But u64 in some arch is %ld, so to avoid compiler warnings we just cast to unsigned long long. And sorry for not updating the subject and comment. I will corret it. [0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAEf4Bza4RT=KFhr9ev29967dyT0eF_+6ZRqK35beUvnA_NbcqQ@mail.gmail.com/ >> >> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com> >> --- >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c | 16 +++++++++------- >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c >> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c >> index e852a9df779d..db10fa1745d1 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c >> @@ -6613,8 +6613,9 @@ static int test_get_linfo(const struct >> prog_info_raw_test *test, >> } >> if (CHECK(jited_linfo[0] != jited_ksyms[0], >> - "jited_linfo[0]:%lx != jited_ksyms[0]:%lx", >> - (long)(jited_linfo[0]), (long)(jited_ksyms[0]))) { >> + "jited_linfo[0]:%llx != jited_ksyms[0]:%llx", >> + (unsigned long long)(jited_linfo[0]), >> + (unsigned long long)(jited_ksyms[0]))) { >> err = -1; >> goto done; >> } >> @@ -6632,16 +6633,17 @@ static int test_get_linfo(const struct >> prog_info_raw_test *test, >> } >> if (CHECK(jited_linfo[i] <= jited_linfo[i - 1], >> - "jited_linfo[%u]:%lx <= jited_linfo[%u]:%lx", >> - i, (long)jited_linfo[i], >> - i - 1, (long)(jited_linfo[i - 1]))) { >> + "jited_linfo[%u]:%llx <= jited_linfo[%u]:%llx", >> + i, (unsigned long long)jited_linfo[i], >> + i - 1, (unsigned long long)(jited_linfo[i - 1]))) { >> err = -1; >> goto done; >> } >> if (CHECK(jited_linfo[i] - cur_func_ksyms > cur_func_len, >> - "jited_linfo[%u]:%lx - %lx > %u", >> - i, (long)jited_linfo[i], (long)cur_func_ksyms, >> + "jited_linfo[%u]:%llx - %llx > %u", >> + i, (unsigned long long)jited_linfo[i], >> + (unsigned long long)cur_func_ksyms, >> cur_func_len)) { >> err = -1; >> goto done; > .
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c index e852a9df779d..db10fa1745d1 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c @@ -6613,8 +6613,9 @@ static int test_get_linfo(const struct prog_info_raw_test *test, } if (CHECK(jited_linfo[0] != jited_ksyms[0], - "jited_linfo[0]:%lx != jited_ksyms[0]:%lx", - (long)(jited_linfo[0]), (long)(jited_ksyms[0]))) { + "jited_linfo[0]:%llx != jited_ksyms[0]:%llx", + (unsigned long long)(jited_linfo[0]), + (unsigned long long)(jited_ksyms[0]))) { err = -1; goto done; } @@ -6632,16 +6633,17 @@ static int test_get_linfo(const struct prog_info_raw_test *test, } if (CHECK(jited_linfo[i] <= jited_linfo[i - 1], - "jited_linfo[%u]:%lx <= jited_linfo[%u]:%lx", - i, (long)jited_linfo[i], - i - 1, (long)(jited_linfo[i - 1]))) { + "jited_linfo[%u]:%llx <= jited_linfo[%u]:%llx", + i, (unsigned long long)jited_linfo[i], + i - 1, (unsigned long long)(jited_linfo[i - 1]))) { err = -1; goto done; } if (CHECK(jited_linfo[i] - cur_func_ksyms > cur_func_len, - "jited_linfo[%u]:%lx - %lx > %u", - i, (long)jited_linfo[i], (long)cur_func_ksyms, + "jited_linfo[%u]:%llx - %llx > %u", + i, (unsigned long long)jited_linfo[i], + (unsigned long long)cur_func_ksyms, cur_func_len)) { err = -1; goto done;
We have unified data extension operation of jited_ksyms and jited_linfo into zero extension, so there's no need to cast u64 memory address to long data type. Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui@huawei.com> --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c | 16 +++++++++------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)