diff mbox series

[bpf-next,2/4] selftests/bpf: Add RUN_MPTCP_TEST macro

Message ID 20240507-upstream-bpf-next-20240506-mptcp-subflow-test-v1-2-e2bcbdf49857@kernel.org (mailing list archive)
State Changes Requested
Delegated to: BPF
Headers show
Series selftests/bpf: new MPTCP subflow subtest & improvements | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-2 success Logs for Unittests
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-1 success Logs for ShellCheck
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-0 success Logs for Lint
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-5 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / build-release
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-4 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / build / build for aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-3 success Logs for Validate matrix.py
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-6 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-PR fail PR summary
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-7 fail Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-8 fail Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-9 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-10 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-11 success Logs for s390x-gcc / build / build for s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-12 success Logs for s390x-gcc / build-release
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-13 success Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-15 fail Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-14 fail Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-16 success Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-19 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / build / build for x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-18 success Logs for set-matrix
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-17 success Logs for s390x-gcc / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-22 fail Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-20 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / build-release
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-24 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32_parallel, true, 30) / test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-23 fail Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-25 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs_parallel, true, 30) / test_progs_parallel on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-21 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-26 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-27 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / veristat / veristat on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-30 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-28 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / build / build for x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-29 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / build-release / build for x86_64 with llvm-17 and -O2 optimization
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-31 fail Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-32 fail Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-33 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-34 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-35 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / build / build for x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-36 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / build-release / build for x86_64 with llvm-18 and -O2 optimization
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-37 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-38 fail Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-39 fail Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_progs_cpuv4, false, 360) / test_progs_cpuv4 on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-40 fail Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-41 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-42 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / veristat

Commit Message

Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) May 7, 2024, 10:53 a.m. UTC 
From: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>

Each MPTCP subtest tests test__start_subtest(suffix), then invokes
test_suffix(). It makes sense to add a new macro RUN_MPTCP_TEST to
simpolify the code.

Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
Reviewed-by: Mat Martineau <martineau@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@kernel.org>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c | 12 ++++++++----
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Comments

Alexei Starovoitov May 7, 2024, 2:44 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 3:53 AM Matthieu Baerts (NGI0)
<matttbe@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> From: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
>
> Each MPTCP subtest tests test__start_subtest(suffix), then invokes
> test_suffix(). It makes sense to add a new macro RUN_MPTCP_TEST to
> simpolify the code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
> Reviewed-by: Mat Martineau <martineau@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@kernel.org>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c | 12 ++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
> index baf976a7a1dd..9d1b255bb654 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
> @@ -347,10 +347,14 @@ static void test_mptcpify(void)
>         close(cgroup_fd);
>  }
>
> +#define RUN_MPTCP_TEST(suffix)                                 \
> +do {                                                           \
> +       if (test__start_subtest(#suffix))                       \
> +               test_##suffix();                                \
> +} while (0)

Please no.
Don't hide it behind macros.

>  void test_mptcp(void)
>  {
> -       if (test__start_subtest("base"))
> -               test_base();
> -       if (test__start_subtest("mptcpify"))
> -               test_mptcpify();
> +       RUN_MPTCP_TEST(base);
> +       RUN_MPTCP_TEST(mptcpify);
>  }
>
> --
> 2.43.0
>
Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) May 7, 2024, 4:02 p.m. UTC | #2 
Hi Alexei,

Thank you for the review!

On 07/05/2024 16:44, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 3:53 AM Matthieu Baerts (NGI0)
> <matttbe@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> From: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
>>
>> Each MPTCP subtest tests test__start_subtest(suffix), then invokes
>> test_suffix(). It makes sense to add a new macro RUN_MPTCP_TEST to
>> simpolify the code.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
>> Reviewed-by: Mat Martineau <martineau@kernel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@kernel.org>
>> ---
>>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c | 12 ++++++++----
>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
>> index baf976a7a1dd..9d1b255bb654 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
>> @@ -347,10 +347,14 @@ static void test_mptcpify(void)
>>         close(cgroup_fd);
>>  }
>>
>> +#define RUN_MPTCP_TEST(suffix)                                 \
>> +do {                                                           \
>> +       if (test__start_subtest(#suffix))                       \
>> +               test_##suffix();                                \
>> +} while (0)
> 
> Please no.
> Don't hide it behind macros.

I understand, I'm personally not a big fan of hiding code being a macro
too. This one saves only one line. Geliang added a few more tests in our
tree [1], for a total of 9, so that's only saving 9 lines.

Related to that, if you don't mind, Geliang also added another macro --
MPTCP_SCHED_TEST -- for tests that are currently only in our tree [2]
(not ready yet). We asked him to reduce the size of this macro to the
minimum. We accepted it because it removed quite a lot of similar code
with very small differences [3]. Do you think we should revert this
modification too?

[1]
https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/blob/4369d9cbd752e166961ac0db7f85886111606301/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c#L578-L595

[2]
https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/blob/4369d9cbd752e166961ac0db7f85886111606301/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c#L559-L576

[3]
https://lore.kernel.org/mptcp/cover.1713321357.git.tanggeliang@kylinos.cn/T/#m0b9c14f1cbae8653c6fd119f6b71d1797961d6ba

Cheers,
Matt
Alexei Starovoitov May 7, 2024, 8:51 p.m. UTC | #3 
On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 9:02 AM Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Alexei,
>
> Thank you for the review!
>
> On 07/05/2024 16:44, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 3:53 AM Matthieu Baerts (NGI0)
> > <matttbe@kernel.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
> >>
> >> Each MPTCP subtest tests test__start_subtest(suffix), then invokes
> >> test_suffix(). It makes sense to add a new macro RUN_MPTCP_TEST to
> >> simpolify the code.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
> >> Reviewed-by: Mat Martineau <martineau@kernel.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@kernel.org>
> >> ---
> >>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c | 12 ++++++++----
> >>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
> >> index baf976a7a1dd..9d1b255bb654 100644
> >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
> >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
> >> @@ -347,10 +347,14 @@ static void test_mptcpify(void)
> >>         close(cgroup_fd);
> >>  }
> >>
> >> +#define RUN_MPTCP_TEST(suffix)                                 \
> >> +do {                                                           \
> >> +       if (test__start_subtest(#suffix))                       \
> >> +               test_##suffix();                                \
> >> +} while (0)
> >
> > Please no.
> > Don't hide it behind macros.
>
> I understand, I'm personally not a big fan of hiding code being a macro
> too. This one saves only one line. Geliang added a few more tests in our
> tree [1], for a total of 9, so that's only saving 9 lines.
>
> Related to that, if you don't mind, Geliang also added another macro --
> MPTCP_SCHED_TEST -- for tests that are currently only in our tree [2]
> (not ready yet). We asked him to reduce the size of this macro to the
> minimum. We accepted it because it removed quite a lot of similar code
> with very small differences [3]. Do you think we should revert this
> modification too?

Yeah. Pls don't hide such things in macros.
Refactor into helper function in normal C.

But, what do you mean "in your tree" ?
That's your development tree and you plan to send all that
properly as patches to bpf-next someday?

>
> [1]
> https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/blob/4369d9cbd752e166961ac0db7f85886111606301/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c#L578-L595
>
> [2]
> https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/blob/4369d9cbd752e166961ac0db7f85886111606301/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c#L559-L576
>
> [3]
> https://lore.kernel.org/mptcp/cover.1713321357.git.tanggeliang@kylinos.cn/T/#m0b9c14f1cbae8653c6fd119f6b71d1797961d6ba
>
> Cheers,
> Matt
> --
> Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund.
>
Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) May 8, 2024, 7:36 a.m. UTC | #4 
Hi Alexei,

Thank you for your reply!

On 07/05/2024 22:51, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 9:02 AM Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Alexei,
>>
>> Thank you for the review!
>>
>> On 07/05/2024 16:44, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 3:53 AM Matthieu Baerts (NGI0)
>>> <matttbe@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
>>>>
>>>> Each MPTCP subtest tests test__start_subtest(suffix), then invokes
>>>> test_suffix(). It makes sense to add a new macro RUN_MPTCP_TEST to
>>>> simpolify the code.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Mat Martineau <martineau@kernel.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@kernel.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c | 12 ++++++++----
>>>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
>>>> index baf976a7a1dd..9d1b255bb654 100644
>>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
>>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
>>>> @@ -347,10 +347,14 @@ static void test_mptcpify(void)
>>>>         close(cgroup_fd);
>>>>  }
>>>>
>>>> +#define RUN_MPTCP_TEST(suffix)                                 \
>>>> +do {                                                           \
>>>> +       if (test__start_subtest(#suffix))                       \
>>>> +               test_##suffix();                                \
>>>> +} while (0)
>>>
>>> Please no.
>>> Don't hide it behind macros.
>>
>> I understand, I'm personally not a big fan of hiding code being a macro
>> too. This one saves only one line. Geliang added a few more tests in our
>> tree [1], for a total of 9, so that's only saving 9 lines.
>>
>> Related to that, if you don't mind, Geliang also added another macro --
>> MPTCP_SCHED_TEST -- for tests that are currently only in our tree [2]
>> (not ready yet). We asked him to reduce the size of this macro to the
>> minimum. We accepted it because it removed quite a lot of similar code
>> with very small differences [3]. Do you think we should revert this
>> modification too?
> 
> Yeah. Pls don't hide such things in macros.
> Refactor into helper function in normal C.

Sure, we will revert that.

> But, what do you mean "in your tree" ?
> That's your development tree and you plan to send all that
> properly as patches to bpf-next someday?

Yes, correct, we have some WIP patches in MPTCP development tree where
we added a new bpf_struct_ops structure to implement new MPTCP packet
schedulers in BPF. This work was paused for a while because we had to
refine the packet scheduler API, but this task is now ongoing. Hopefully
we will be able to send patches to bpf-next this "soon".

Cheers,
Matt
Geliang Tang May 11, 2024, 1:42 a.m. UTC | #5 
On Tue, 2024-05-07 at 13:51 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 9:02 AM Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@kernel.org>
> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Alexei,
> > 
> > Thank you for the review!
> > 
> > On 07/05/2024 16:44, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 3:53 AM Matthieu Baerts (NGI0)
> > > <matttbe@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > From: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
> > > > 
> > > > Each MPTCP subtest tests test__start_subtest(suffix), then
> > > > invokes
> > > > test_suffix(). It makes sense to add a new macro RUN_MPTCP_TEST
> > > > to
> > > > simpolify the code.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Mat Martineau <martineau@kernel.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@kernel.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c | 12 ++++++++--
> > > > --
> > > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
> > > > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
> > > > index baf976a7a1dd..9d1b255bb654 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
> > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
> > > > @@ -347,10 +347,14 @@ static void test_mptcpify(void)
> > > >         close(cgroup_fd);
> > > >  }
> > > > 
> > > > +#define RUN_MPTCP_TEST(suffix)                                
> > > > \
> > > > +do {                                                          
> > > > \
> > > > +       if (test__start_subtest(#suffix))                      
> > > > \
> > > > +               test_##suffix();                               
> > > > \
> > > > +} while (0)
> > > 
> > > Please no.
> > > Don't hide it behind macros.
> > 
> > I understand, I'm personally not a big fan of hiding code being a
> > macro
> > too. This one saves only one line. Geliang added a few more tests
> > in our
> > tree [1], for a total of 9, so that's only saving 9 lines.
> > 
> > Related to that, if you don't mind, Geliang also added another
> > macro --
> > MPTCP_SCHED_TEST -- for tests that are currently only in our tree
> > [2]
> > (not ready yet). We asked him to reduce the size of this macro to
> > the
> > minimum. We accepted it because it removed quite a lot of similar
> > code
> > with very small differences [3]. Do you think we should revert this
> > modification too?
> 
> Yeah. Pls don't hide such things in macros.
> Refactor into helper function in normal C.

I do agree to remove this RUN_MPTCP_TEST macro. But MPTCP_SCHED_TEST
macro is different. I know this type of macro is unwelcome. But it's
indeed a perfect place to use macro in MPTCP bpf sched tests.

From

'''
static void test_first(void)
{
	struct mptcp_bpf_first *skel;

	skel = mptcp_bpf_first__open_and_load();
	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "open_and_load: first"))
		return;

	test_bpf_sched(skel->obj, "first", WITH_DATA, WITHOUT_DATA);
	mptcp_bpf_first__destroy(skel);
}

static void test_bkup(void)
{
	struct mptcp_bpf_bkup *skel;

	skel = mptcp_bpf_bkup__open_and_load();
	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "open_and_load: bkup"))
		return;

	test_bpf_sched(skel->obj, "bkup", WITH_DATA, WITHOUT_DATA);
	mptcp_bpf_bkup__destroy(skel);
}

static void test_rr(void)
{
	struct mptcp_bpf_rr *skel;

	skel = mptcp_bpf_rr__open_and_load();
	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "open_and_load: rr"))
		return;

	test_bpf_sched(skel->obj, "rr", WITH_DATA, WITH_DATA);
	mptcp_bpf_rr__destroy(skel);
}

static void test_red(void)
{
	struct mptcp_bpf_red *skel;

	skel = mptcp_bpf_red__open_and_load();
	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "open_and_load: red"))
		return;

	test_bpf_sched(skel->obj, "red", WITH_DATA, WITH_DATA);
	mptcp_bpf_red__destroy(skel);
}

static void test_burst(void)
{
	struct mptcp_bpf_burst *skel;

	skel = mptcp_bpf_burst__open_and_load();
	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "open_and_load: burst"))
		return;

	test_bpf_sched(skel->obj, "burst", WITH_DATA, WITH_DATA);
	mptcp_bpf_burst__destroy(skel);
}

static void test_stale(void)
{
	struct mptcp_bpf_stale *skel;

	skel = mptcp_bpf_stale__open_and_load();
	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "open_and_load: stale"))
		return;

	test_bpf_sched(skel->obj, "stale", WITH_DATA, WITHOUT_DATA);
	mptcp_bpf_stale__destroy(skel);
}
'''

to

'''
#define MPTCP_SCHED_TEST(sched, addr1, addr2)                   \
static void test_##sched(void)                                  \
{                                                               \
        struct mptcp_bpf_##sched *skel;                         \
                                                                \
        skel = mptcp_bpf_##sched##__open_and_load();            \
        if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "open_and_load:" #sched))      \
                return;                                         \
                                                                \
        test_bpf_sched(skel->obj, #sched, addr1, addr2);        \
        mptcp_bpf_##sched##__destroy(skel);                     \
}

MPTCP_SCHED_TEST(first, WITH_DATA, WITHOUT_DATA);
MPTCP_SCHED_TEST(bkup, WITH_DATA, WITHOUT_DATA);
MPTCP_SCHED_TEST(rr, WITH_DATA, WITH_DATA);
MPTCP_SCHED_TEST(red, WITH_DATA, WITH_DATA);
MPTCP_SCHED_TEST(burst, WITH_DATA, WITH_DATA);
MPTCP_SCHED_TEST(stale, WITH_DATA, WITHOUT_DATA);
'''

We can save so many code, and perfectly use BPF test skeleton template.
It's small enough, and be difficult to refactor with a helper function
in normal C.

Please reconsider whether to delete it, or at least keep it until the
day it is officially sent to BPF mail list for review.

Thanks,
-Geliang

> 
> But, what do you mean "in your tree" ?
> That's your development tree and you plan to send all that
> properly as patches to bpf-next someday?
> 
> > 
> > [1]
> > https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/blob/4369d9cbd752e166961ac0db7f85886111606301/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c#L578-L595
> > 
> > [2]
> > https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/blob/4369d9cbd752e166961ac0db7f85886111606301/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c#L559-L576
> > 
> > [3]
> > https://lore.kernel.org/mptcp/cover.1713321357.git.tanggeliang@kylinos.cn/T/#m0b9c14f1cbae8653c6fd119f6b71d1797961d6ba
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Matt
> > --
> > Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund.
> >
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
index baf976a7a1dd..9d1b255bb654 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
@@ -347,10 +347,14 @@  static void test_mptcpify(void)
 	close(cgroup_fd);
 }
 
+#define RUN_MPTCP_TEST(suffix)					\
+do {								\
+	if (test__start_subtest(#suffix))			\
+		test_##suffix();				\
+} while (0)
+
 void test_mptcp(void)
 {
-	if (test__start_subtest("base"))
-		test_base();
-	if (test__start_subtest("mptcpify"))
-		test_mptcpify();
+	RUN_MPTCP_TEST(base);
+	RUN_MPTCP_TEST(mptcpify);
 }