| Message ID | 20230801065447.3609130-1-ruanjinjie@huawei.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [-next,v2] selftests/bpf: replace fall through comment by fallthrough pseudo-keyword | expand |
Hi, On 8/1/2023 2:54 PM, Ruan Jinjie wrote: > Replace the existing /* fall through */ comments with the > new pseudo-keyword macro fallthrough[1]. > > [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.7/process/deprecated.html?highlight=fallthrough#implicit-switch-case-fall-through > > Signed-off-by: Ruan Jinjie <ruanjinjie@huawei.com> > --- > v2: > - Update the subject and commit message. According to the section "How do I indicate which tree (bpf vs. bpf-next) my patch should be applied to" in Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst, the subject prefix should be [PATCH bpf-next]. > --- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c | 4 ++-- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect.c | 2 +- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect_dynptr.c | 2 +- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 2 +- > 4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c > index a543742cd7bd..0fd08172965a 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c > @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ static void verify_success(struct kfunc_test_params *param) > case syscall_test: > topts.ctx_in = &args; > topts.ctx_size_in = sizeof(args); > - /* fallthrough */ > + fallthrough; > case syscall_null_ctx_test: > break; > case tc_test: > @@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ static void verify_fail(struct kfunc_test_params *param) > case syscall_test: > topts.ctx_in = &args; > topts.ctx_size_in = sizeof(args); > - /* fallthrough */ > + fallthrough; > case syscall_null_ctx_test: > break; > case tc_test: > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect.c > index 66b304982245..f97960759558 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect.c > @@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ bool pkt_skip_ipv6_extension_headers(buf_t *pkt, > case IPPROTO_FRAGMENT: > *is_fragment = true; > /* NB: We don't check that hdrlen == 0 as per spec. */ > - /* fallthrough; */ > + fallthrough; The build of test_progs failed as shown below. Have you tested your patch locally ? progs/test_cls_redirect.c:292:4: In file included from progs/test_cls_redirect_subprogs.cerror: :2: use of undeclared identifier 'fallthrough' progs/test_cls_redirect.c:292:4: error: use of undeclared identifier 'fallthrough' fallthrough; ^ fallthrough; ^ > > case IPPROTO_HOPOPTS: > case IPPROTO_ROUTING: > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect_dynptr.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect_dynptr.c > index f41c81212ee9..54dbf307c692 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect_dynptr.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect_dynptr.c > @@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ static bool pkt_skip_ipv6_extension_headers(struct bpf_dynptr *dynptr, __u64 *of > case IPPROTO_FRAGMENT: > *is_fragment = true; > /* NB: We don't check that hdrlen == 0 as per spec. */ > - /* fallthrough; */ > + fallthrough; > > case IPPROTO_HOPOPTS: > case IPPROTO_ROUTING: > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c > index 31f1c935cd07..5621a4e0a1be 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c > @@ -1289,7 +1289,7 @@ static int do_prog_test_run(int fd_prog, bool unpriv, uint32_t expected_val, > printf("Did not run the program (no permission) "); > return 0; > } > - /* fallthrough; */ > + fallthrough; > default: > printf("FAIL: Unexpected bpf_prog_test_run error (%s) ", > strerror(saved_errno));
Hi, On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 02:54:47PM +0800, Ruan Jinjie wrote: > Replace the existing /* fall through */ comments with the > new pseudo-keyword macro fallthrough[1]. > > [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.7/process/deprecated.html?highlight=fallthrough#implicit-switch-case-fall-through > > Signed-off-by: Ruan Jinjie <ruanjinjie@huawei.com> > --- > v2: > - Update the subject and commit message. I think what Alexei meant was subject-prefix which needs to be 'PATCH bpf-next'. You can read more about patch submission rules in Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst.
On 2023/8/1 15:47, Artem Savkov wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 02:54:47PM +0800, Ruan Jinjie wrote: >> Replace the existing /* fall through */ comments with the >> new pseudo-keyword macro fallthrough[1]. >> >> [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.7/process/deprecated.html?highlight=fallthrough#implicit-switch-case-fall-through >> >> Signed-off-by: Ruan Jinjie <ruanjinjie@huawei.com> >> --- >> v2: >> - Update the subject and commit message. > > I think what Alexei meant was subject-prefix which needs to be > 'PATCH bpf-next'. You can read more about patch submission rules > in Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst. Thank you very much! I will fix it in v3. >
On 2023/8/1 15:38, Hou Tao wrote: > Hi, > > On 8/1/2023 2:54 PM, Ruan Jinjie wrote: >> Replace the existing /* fall through */ comments with the >> new pseudo-keyword macro fallthrough[1]. >> >> [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.7/process/deprecated.html?highlight=fallthrough#implicit-switch-case-fall-through >> >> Signed-off-by: Ruan Jinjie <ruanjinjie@huawei.com> >> --- >> v2: >> - Update the subject and commit message. > > According to the section "How do I indicate which tree (bpf vs. > bpf-next) my patch should be applied to" in > Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst, the subject prefix should be [PATCH > bpf-next]. >> --- >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c | 4 ++-- >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect.c | 2 +- >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect_dynptr.c | 2 +- >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 2 +- >> 4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c >> index a543742cd7bd..0fd08172965a 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c >> @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ static void verify_success(struct kfunc_test_params *param) >> case syscall_test: >> topts.ctx_in = &args; >> topts.ctx_size_in = sizeof(args); >> - /* fallthrough */ >> + fallthrough; >> case syscall_null_ctx_test: >> break; >> case tc_test: >> @@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ static void verify_fail(struct kfunc_test_params *param) >> case syscall_test: >> topts.ctx_in = &args; >> topts.ctx_size_in = sizeof(args); >> - /* fallthrough */ >> + fallthrough; >> case syscall_null_ctx_test: >> break; >> case tc_test: >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect.c >> index 66b304982245..f97960759558 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect.c >> @@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ bool pkt_skip_ipv6_extension_headers(buf_t *pkt, >> case IPPROTO_FRAGMENT: >> *is_fragment = true; >> /* NB: We don't check that hdrlen == 0 as per spec. */ >> - /* fallthrough; */ >> + fallthrough; > > The build of test_progs failed as shown below. Have you tested your > patch locally ? > > progs/test_cls_redirect.c:292:4: In file included from > progs/test_cls_redirect_subprogs.cerror: :2: > use of undeclared identifier 'fallthrough' > progs/test_cls_redirect.c:292:4: error: use of undeclared identifier > 'fallthrough' Thank you very much! I will fix it in v3 > fallthrough; > ^ > fallthrough; > ^ > > >> >> case IPPROTO_HOPOPTS: >> case IPPROTO_ROUTING: >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect_dynptr.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect_dynptr.c >> index f41c81212ee9..54dbf307c692 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect_dynptr.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect_dynptr.c >> @@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ static bool pkt_skip_ipv6_extension_headers(struct bpf_dynptr *dynptr, __u64 *of >> case IPPROTO_FRAGMENT: >> *is_fragment = true; >> /* NB: We don't check that hdrlen == 0 as per spec. */ >> - /* fallthrough; */ >> + fallthrough; >> >> case IPPROTO_HOPOPTS: >> case IPPROTO_ROUTING: >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c >> index 31f1c935cd07..5621a4e0a1be 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c >> @@ -1289,7 +1289,7 @@ static int do_prog_test_run(int fd_prog, bool unpriv, uint32_t expected_val, >> printf("Did not run the program (no permission) "); >> return 0; >> } >> - /* fallthrough; */ >> + fallthrough; >> default: >> printf("FAIL: Unexpected bpf_prog_test_run error (%s) ", >> strerror(saved_errno)); >
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c index a543742cd7bd..0fd08172965a 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ static void verify_success(struct kfunc_test_params *param) case syscall_test: topts.ctx_in = &args; topts.ctx_size_in = sizeof(args); - /* fallthrough */ + fallthrough; case syscall_null_ctx_test: break; case tc_test: @@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ static void verify_fail(struct kfunc_test_params *param) case syscall_test: topts.ctx_in = &args; topts.ctx_size_in = sizeof(args); - /* fallthrough */ + fallthrough; case syscall_null_ctx_test: break; case tc_test: diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect.c index 66b304982245..f97960759558 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect.c @@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ bool pkt_skip_ipv6_extension_headers(buf_t *pkt, case IPPROTO_FRAGMENT: *is_fragment = true; /* NB: We don't check that hdrlen == 0 as per spec. */ - /* fallthrough; */ + fallthrough; case IPPROTO_HOPOPTS: case IPPROTO_ROUTING: diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect_dynptr.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect_dynptr.c index f41c81212ee9..54dbf307c692 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect_dynptr.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect_dynptr.c @@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ static bool pkt_skip_ipv6_extension_headers(struct bpf_dynptr *dynptr, __u64 *of case IPPROTO_FRAGMENT: *is_fragment = true; /* NB: We don't check that hdrlen == 0 as per spec. */ - /* fallthrough; */ + fallthrough; case IPPROTO_HOPOPTS: case IPPROTO_ROUTING: diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c index 31f1c935cd07..5621a4e0a1be 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c @@ -1289,7 +1289,7 @@ static int do_prog_test_run(int fd_prog, bool unpriv, uint32_t expected_val, printf("Did not run the program (no permission) "); return 0; } - /* fallthrough; */ + fallthrough; default: printf("FAIL: Unexpected bpf_prog_test_run error (%s) ", strerror(saved_errno));
Replace the existing /* fall through */ comments with the new pseudo-keyword macro fallthrough[1]. [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.7/process/deprecated.html?highlight=fallthrough#implicit-switch-case-fall-through Signed-off-by: Ruan Jinjie <ruanjinjie@huawei.com> --- v2: - Update the subject and commit message. --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kfunc_call.c | 4 ++-- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect.c | 2 +- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cls_redirect_dynptr.c | 2 +- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 2 +- 4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)