From: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org
To: vineet.gupta@linux.dev,bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: ast@kernel.org,daniel@iogearbox.net,andrii@kernel.org,eddyz87@gmail.com,memxor@gmail.com,martin.lau@linux.dev,song@kernel.org,yonghong.song@linux.dev,jolsa@kernel.org,emil@etsalapatis.com,ihor.solodrai@linux.dev,john.fastabend@gmail.com,shuah@kernel.org,linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,jose.marchesi@oracle.com,david.faust@oss.qualcomm.com,vineet.gupta@linux.dev,ast@kernel.org,andrii@kernel.org,daniel@iogearbox.net,martin.lau@kernel.org,eddyz87@gmail.com,yonghong.song@linux.dev,mason@kernel.org,ihor.solodrai@linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 1/7] selftests/bpf: Build callx tests with GCC that defines __BPF_FEATURE_CALLX
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2026 00:46:12 +0000 (UTC) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <804b7fd3c3bf40a5edf65903d90514263e61fc6fa2ef513d35913fe8ed9acad8@mail.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261028000411.4010967-2-vineet.gupta@linux.dev>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2372 bytes --]
> selftests/bpf: Build callx tests with GCC that defines __BPF_FEATURE_CALLX
TL;DR: Nit only: the new __skip() reason in the callx selftests omits riscv64,
though riscv64 is supported, so a riscv64 build with a GCC lacking callx
prints a misleading skip message.
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_misc.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_misc.h
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_misc.h
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_misc.h
[ ... ]
> @@ -295,6 +295,13 @@
> #define CAN_USE_LOAD_ACQ_STORE_REL
> #endif
>
> +/* clang always emits callx, gcc only when it defines __BPF_FEATURE_CALLX */
> +#if (defined(__TARGET_ARCH_arm64) || defined(__TARGET_ARCH_x86) || \
> + (defined(__TARGET_ARCH_riscv) && __riscv_xlen == 64)) && \
> + (defined(__clang__) || defined(__BPF_FEATURE_CALLX))
> +#define CAN_USE_CALLX
> +#endif
> +
[ ... ]
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_callx.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_callx.c
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_callx.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/verifier_callx.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -1075,6 +1073,7 @@ int callx_c_ops_on_stack(void *ctx)
> #else
>
> SEC("socket")
> +__skip("callx needs x86/arm64 JIT and compiler support")
> __success
> int dummy(void *ctx)
> {
this isn't a bug, but the skip reason leaves out riscv64, even though the
CAN_USE_CALLX macro above accepts it.
The same string is added to the dummy() program in
verifier_callx_rodata.c. The riscv64 JIT implements bpf_jit_supports_callx(),
and commit 530dfafc6107 ("selftests/bpf: Enable callx related testcases for
RV64") turned these tests on for RV64.
On a riscv64 build with a bpf-gcc that does not define __BPF_FEATURE_CALLX,
the arch supports callx and only the compiler lacks it, yet run_subtest()
prints:
run_subtest:SKIP: callx needs x86/arm64 JIT and compiler support
That reads as though riscv64 itself were unsupported.
Could the reason say x86/arm64/riscv64, or leave the arch list out (for
example "toolchain or JIT can't do callx", as the new comment in
callx_rodata_lskel.c does)?
---
AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md
CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/40608355234
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-28 0:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-28 0:04 Vineet Gupta
2026-10-28 0:46 ` bot+bpf-ci [this message]
2026-10-28 16:08 ` Vineet Gupta
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=804b7fd3c3bf40a5edf65903d90514263e61fc6fa2ef513d35913fe8ed9acad8@mail.kernel.org \
--to=bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=david.faust@oss.qualcomm.com \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
--cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=jose.marchesi@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=mason@kernel.org \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=vineet.gupta@linux.dev \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®