[PATCH bpf-next v3 6/6] selftests/bpf: Remove the casting about jited_ksyms and jited_linfo

[Pu Lehui]

On 2022/6/4 5:05, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 1:58 AM Pu Lehui <pulehui at huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>> We have unified data extension operation of jited_ksyms and jited_linfo
>> into zero extension, so there's no need to cast u64 memory address to
>> long data type.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pu Lehui <pulehui at huawei.com>
>> ---
>>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c | 14 +++++++-------
>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c
>> index e6612f2bd0cf..65bdc4aa0a63 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/btf.c
>> @@ -6599,8 +6599,8 @@ static int test_get_linfo(const struct prog_info_raw_test *test,
>>          }
>>
>>          if (CHECK(jited_linfo[0] != jited_ksyms[0],
>> -                 "jited_linfo[0]:%lx != jited_ksyms[0]:%lx",
>> -                 (long)(jited_linfo[0]), (long)(jited_ksyms[0]))) {
>> +                 "jited_linfo[0]:%llx != jited_ksyms[0]:%llx",
>> +                 jited_linfo[0], jited_ksyms[0])) {
> 
> __u64 is not always printed with %lld, on some platforms it is
> actually %ld, so to avoid compiler warnings we just cast them to long
> long or unsigned long long (and then %lld or %llu is fine). So please
> update this part here and below.
> 

I found that __u64 in ppc64 actually is defined to be unsigned long. I 
will update it. Thanks.

>>                  err = -1;
>>                  goto done;
>>          }
>> @@ -6618,16 +6618,16 @@ static int test_get_linfo(const struct prog_info_raw_test *test,
>>                  }
>>
>>                  if (CHECK(jited_linfo[i] <= jited_linfo[i - 1],
>> -                         "jited_linfo[%u]:%lx <= jited_linfo[%u]:%lx",
>> -                         i, (long)jited_linfo[i],
>> -                         i - 1, (long)(jited_linfo[i - 1]))) {
>> +                         "jited_linfo[%u]:%llx <= jited_linfo[%u]:%llx",
>> +                         i, jited_linfo[i],
>> +                         i - 1, jited_linfo[i - 1])) {
>>                          err = -1;
>>                          goto done;
>>                  }
>>
>>                  if (CHECK(jited_linfo[i] - cur_func_ksyms > cur_func_len,
>> -                         "jited_linfo[%u]:%lx - %lx > %u",
>> -                         i, (long)jited_linfo[i], (long)cur_func_ksyms,
>> +                         "jited_linfo[%u]:%llx - %llx > %u",
>> +                         i, jited_linfo[i], cur_func_ksyms,
>>                            cur_func_len)) {
>>                          err = -1;
>>                          goto done;
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>>
> .
>