Hi Eduard,
On Mon, 2024-07-08 at 12:42 -0700, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
On Fri, 2024-07-05 at 10:38 +0800, Geliang Tang wrote:
[...]
I think that this patch is an improvement independent of the patch- set. Please submit it separately.
.../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_tcp_ca.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
[...]
@@ -489,6 +494,7 @@ static void test_mixed_links(void) ASSERT_ERR(err, "update_map"); bpf_link__destroy(link); +err:
Nit: there are two links in this test, but ASSERT_OK_PTR is added only for a single one. Also note that bpf_link__destroy(NULL) works just fine, so it is possible to initialize links as NULL and make a jump to cleanup block w/o peeking exact position within that block.
Thanks for your review. I sent a set named "BPF selftests misc fixes" yesterday to address your comments.
But reconsider it. I think here checking the first link (link_nl) is enough. We can keep the second link as it.
I changed "BPF selftests misc fixes" as "Changes Requested".
Thanks, -Geliang
bpf_link__destroy(link_nl); tcp_ca_update__destroy(skel); }
[...]