[mptcp-next] selftests/bpf: Drop cgroup_fd of run_mptcpify

Commit Message

Geliang Tang Jan. 15, 2025, 7:28 a.m. UTC

From: Geliang Tang <[e-mail]>

The parameter 'cgroup_fd' of run_mptcpify() is useless, drop it.

Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <[e-mail]>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

MPTCP CI Jan. 15, 2025, 8:39 a.m. UTC | #1

Hi Geliang,

Thank you for your modifications, that's great!

Our CI did some validations and here is its report:

- KVM Validation: normal: Success! ✅
- KVM Validation: debug: Success! ✅
- KVM Validation: btf-normal (only bpftest_all): Success! ✅
- KVM Validation: btf-debug (only bpftest_all): Success! ✅
- Task: https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/actions/runs/12783748540

Initiator: Patchew Applier
Commits: https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/commits/c6705ddd1ca5
Patchwork: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/mptcp/list/?series=925578


If there are some issues, you can reproduce them using the same environment as
the one used by the CI thanks to a docker image, e.g.:

    $ cd [kernel source code]
    $ docker run -v "${PWD}:${PWD}:rw" -w "${PWD}" --privileged --rm -it \
        --pull always mptcp/mptcp-upstream-virtme-docker:latest \
        auto-normal

For more details:

    https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp-upstream-virtme-docker


Please note that despite all the efforts that have been already done to have a
stable tests suite when executed on a public CI like here, it is possible some
reported issues are not due to your modifications. Still, do not hesitate to
help us improve that ;-)

Cheers,
MPTCP GH Action bot
Bot operated by Matthieu Baerts (NGI0 Core)

Matthieu Baerts Jan. 15, 2025, 9:31 a.m. UTC | #2

Hi Geliang,

On 15/01/2025 08:28, Geliang Tang wrote:
> From: Geliang Tang <[e-mail]>
> 
> The parameter 'cgroup_fd' of run_mptcpify() is useless, drop it.

(detail: s/useless/unused/)

The modification looks good to me, thank you!

Reviewed-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <[e-mail]>

Do you want to send it directly to the BPF maintainers, for the
bpf-next/net tree? We don't have other changes that are ready to send.

Or I park it in our tree, and we send it later (no urgency I guess)?

Cheers,
Matt

Geliang Tang Jan. 15, 2025, 9:34 a.m. UTC | #3

On Wed, 2025-01-15 at 10:31 +0100, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> Hi Geliang,
> 
> On 15/01/2025 08:28, Geliang Tang wrote:
> > From: Geliang Tang <[e-mail]>
> > 
> > The parameter 'cgroup_fd' of run_mptcpify() is useless, drop it.
> 
> (detail: s/useless/unused/)

Thanks, please update this for me.

> 
> The modification looks good to me, thank you!
> 
> Reviewed-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <[e-mail]>
> 
> Do you want to send it directly to the BPF maintainers, for the
> bpf-next/net tree? We don't have other changes that are ready to
> send.
> 
> Or I park it in our tree, and we send it later (no urgency I guess)?

Please merge it in our tree and send it later together with other bpf
patches.

Thanks,
-Geliang

> 
> Cheers,
> Matt

Patch

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
index 1d68bbda3370..258587700187 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
@@ -283,7 +283,7 @@  static int verify_mptcpify(int server_fd, int client_fd)
 	return err;
 }
 
-static int run_mptcpify(int cgroup_fd)
+static int run_mptcpify(void)
 {
 	int server_fd, client_fd, err = 0;
 	struct mptcpify *mptcpify_skel;
@@ -336,7 +336,7 @@  static void test_mptcpify(void)
 	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(netns, "netns_new"))
 		goto fail;
 
-	ASSERT_OK(run_mptcpify(cgroup_fd), "run_mptcpify");
+	ASSERT_OK(run_mptcpify(), "run_mptcpify");
 
 fail:
 	netns_free(netns);