diff mbox series

[bpf-next,2/2] selftests/bpf: verify newline for struct with padding only fields

Message ID 20220930164918.342310-3-eddyz87@gmail.com (mailing list archive)
State Changes Requested
Delegated to: BPF
Headers show
Series bpftool: fix newline for struct with padding only fields | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
netdev/tree_selection success Clearly marked for bpf-next
netdev/fixes_present success Fixes tag not required for -next series
netdev/subject_prefix success Link
netdev/cover_letter success Series has a cover letter
netdev/patch_count success Link
netdev/header_inline success No static functions without inline keyword in header files
netdev/build_32bit success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/cc_maintainers warning 12 maintainers not CCed: sdf@google.com john.fastabend@gmail.com yhs@fb.com haoluo@google.com sunyucong@gmail.com linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org jolsa@kernel.org kpsingh@kernel.org song@kernel.org shuah@kernel.org mykolal@fb.com martin.lau@linux.dev
netdev/build_clang success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/module_param success Was 0 now: 0
netdev/verify_signedoff success Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer
netdev/check_selftest success No net selftest shell script
netdev/verify_fixes success No Fixes tag
netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/checkpatch warning WARNING: Prefer __aligned(8) over __attribute__((aligned(8)))
netdev/kdoc success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/source_inline success Was 0 now: 0
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-16 success Logs for test_verifier on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-17 success Logs for test_verifier on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-12 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-15 success Logs for test_verifier on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-9 success Logs for test_progs on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-13 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-14 success Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-10 success Logs for test_progs on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-11 success Logs for test_progs on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-7 success Logs for test_maps on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-8 success Logs for test_maps on x86_64 with llvm-16
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-PR success PR summary
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-6 success Logs for test_maps on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-1 success Logs for llvm-toolchain
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-4 success Logs for llvm-toolchain
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-5 success Logs for set-matrix
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-2 success Logs for build for x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-3 success Logs for build for x86_64 with llvm-16

Commit Message

Eduard Zingerman Sept. 30, 2022, 4:49 p.m. UTC 
Verify that `bpftool btf dump file ... format c` correctly prints
newlines for structures that consist of anonymous-only padding fields.

Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
---
 .../bpf/progs/btf_dump_test_case_padding.c       | 16 ++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)

Comments

Andrii Nakryiko Sept. 30, 2022, 11:03 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 9:50 AM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Verify that `bpftool btf dump file ... format c` correctly prints
> newlines for structures that consist of anonymous-only padding fields.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
> ---
>  .../bpf/progs/btf_dump_test_case_padding.c       | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/btf_dump_test_case_padding.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/btf_dump_test_case_padding.c
> index f2661c8d2d90..08e43ee38188 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/btf_dump_test_case_padding.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/btf_dump_test_case_padding.c
> @@ -102,12 +102,28 @@ struct zone {
>         struct zone_padding __pad__;
>  };
>
> +/* ----- START-EXPECTED-OUTPUT ----- */
> +/*
> + *struct padding_wo_named_members {
> + *     long: 64;
> + *     long: 64;
> + *};
> + *
> + */
> +/* ------ END-EXPECTED-OUTPUT ------ */
> +
> +struct padding_wo_named_members {
> +       long: 64;
> +       long: 64;
> +} __attribute__((aligned(8)));

you don't really need aligned(8) attribute, if you drop it you can
have a single copy of the struct (just like padded_implicitly above)

> +
>  int f(struct {
>         struct padded_implicitly _1;
>         struct padded_explicitly _2;
>         struct padded_a_lot _3;
>         struct padded_cache_line _4;
>         struct zone _5;
> +       struct padding_wo_named_members _6;
>  } *_)
>  {
>         return 0;
> --
> 2.37.3
>
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/btf_dump_test_case_padding.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/btf_dump_test_case_padding.c
index f2661c8d2d90..08e43ee38188 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/btf_dump_test_case_padding.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/btf_dump_test_case_padding.c
@@ -102,12 +102,28 @@  struct zone {
 	struct zone_padding __pad__;
 };
 
+/* ----- START-EXPECTED-OUTPUT ----- */
+/*
+ *struct padding_wo_named_members {
+ *	long: 64;
+ *	long: 64;
+ *};
+ *
+ */
+/* ------ END-EXPECTED-OUTPUT ------ */
+
+struct padding_wo_named_members {
+	long: 64;
+	long: 64;
+} __attribute__((aligned(8)));
+
 int f(struct {
 	struct padded_implicitly _1;
 	struct padded_explicitly _2;
 	struct padded_a_lot _3;
 	struct padded_cache_line _4;
 	struct zone _5;
+	struct padding_wo_named_members _6;
 } *_)
 {
 	return 0;