diff options
author | Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> | 2024-01-03 10:41:22 -0800 |
---|---|---|
committer | Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> | 2024-01-03 11:08:24 -0800 |
commit | b4560055c8f11c5e2cfffb4de928b3cfd4eae3b4 (patch) | |
tree | 0cd08e41ae266dee372fd04ba167791dbbf252ac /tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions.c | |
parent | a640de4cf9fec0caf43ccb7404ec9f0fde9a6a65 (diff) | |
parent | 7e3811cb998f0e2493677c7daf6cefb4ece27111 (diff) |
Merge branch 'bpf-volatile-compare'
Alexei Starovoitov says:
====================
bpf: volatile compare
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
v2->v3:
Debugged profiler.c regression. It was caused by basic block layout.
Introduce bpf_cmp_likely() and bpf_cmp_unlikely() macros.
Debugged redundant <<=32, >>=32 with u32 variables. Added cast workaround.
v1->v2:
Fixed issues pointed out by Daniel, added more tests, attempted to convert profiler.c,
but barrier_var() wins vs bpf_cmp(). To be investigated.
Patches 1-4 are good to go, but 5 needs more work.
====================
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231226191148.48536-1-alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions.c')
-rw-r--r-- | tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions.c | 20 |
1 files changed, 10 insertions, 10 deletions
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions.c index 2811ee842b01..f09cd14d8e04 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/exceptions.c @@ -210,7 +210,7 @@ __noinline int assert_zero_gfunc(u64 c) { volatile u64 cookie = c; - bpf_assert_eq(cookie, 0); + bpf_assert(bpf_cmp_unlikely(cookie, ==, 0)); return 0; } @@ -218,7 +218,7 @@ __noinline int assert_neg_gfunc(s64 c) { volatile s64 cookie = c; - bpf_assert_lt(cookie, 0); + bpf_assert(bpf_cmp_unlikely(cookie, <, 0)); return 0; } @@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ __noinline int assert_pos_gfunc(s64 c) { volatile s64 cookie = c; - bpf_assert_gt(cookie, 0); + bpf_assert(bpf_cmp_unlikely(cookie, >, 0)); return 0; } @@ -234,7 +234,7 @@ __noinline int assert_negeq_gfunc(s64 c) { volatile s64 cookie = c; - bpf_assert_le(cookie, -1); + bpf_assert(bpf_cmp_unlikely(cookie, <=, -1)); return 0; } @@ -242,7 +242,7 @@ __noinline int assert_poseq_gfunc(s64 c) { volatile s64 cookie = c; - bpf_assert_ge(cookie, 1); + bpf_assert(bpf_cmp_unlikely(cookie, >=, 1)); return 0; } @@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ __noinline int assert_zero_gfunc_with(u64 c) { volatile u64 cookie = c; - bpf_assert_eq_with(cookie, 0, cookie + 100); + bpf_assert_with(bpf_cmp_unlikely(cookie, ==, 0), cookie + 100); return 0; } @@ -266,7 +266,7 @@ __noinline int assert_neg_gfunc_with(s64 c) { volatile s64 cookie = c; - bpf_assert_lt_with(cookie, 0, cookie + 100); + bpf_assert_with(bpf_cmp_unlikely(cookie, <, 0), cookie + 100); return 0; } @@ -274,7 +274,7 @@ __noinline int assert_pos_gfunc_with(s64 c) { volatile s64 cookie = c; - bpf_assert_gt_with(cookie, 0, cookie + 100); + bpf_assert_with(bpf_cmp_unlikely(cookie, >, 0), cookie + 100); return 0; } @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ __noinline int assert_negeq_gfunc_with(s64 c) { volatile s64 cookie = c; - bpf_assert_le_with(cookie, -1, cookie + 100); + bpf_assert_with(bpf_cmp_unlikely(cookie, <=, -1), cookie + 100); return 0; } @@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ __noinline int assert_poseq_gfunc_with(s64 c) { volatile s64 cookie = c; - bpf_assert_ge_with(cookie, 1, cookie + 100); + bpf_assert_with(bpf_cmp_unlikely(cookie, >=, 1), cookie + 100); return 0; } |