Thanks for the quick review!
> On Sep 22, 2020, at 9:49 PM, John Fastabend <john.fastab...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Song Liu wrote:
>> This test runs test_run for raw_tracepoint program. The test covers ctx
>> input, retval output, and proper handling of cpu_plus field.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <songliubrav...@fb.com>
>> ---
>
> [...]
>
>> +
>> + test_attr.ctx_size_in = sizeof(args);
>> + err = bpf_prog_test_run_xattr(&test_attr);
>> + CHECK(err < 0, "test_run", "err %d\n", errno);
>> + CHECK(test_attr.retval != expected_retval, "check_retval",
>> + "expect 0x%x, got 0x%x\n", expected_retval, test_attr.retval);
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < nr_online; i++)
>> + if (online[i]) {
>> + DECLARE_LIBBPF_OPTS(bpf_prog_test_run_opts, opts,
>> + .cpu_plus = i + 1,
>> + );
>> + err = bpf_prog_test_run_xattr_opts(&test_attr, &opts);
>> + CHECK(err < 0, "test_run_with_opts", "err %d\n", errno);
>> + CHECK(skel->data->on_cpu != i, "check_on_cpu",
>> + "got wrong value\n");
>
> Should we also check retval here just to be thorough?
Good point! As we do use a different code path here. Added the check
and removed goto in 1/3.
I will send v2 tomorrow.
Thanks,
Song
