Re: [PATCH RESEND bpf-next v1] test_bpf: Rename second ALU64_SMOD_X to ALU64_SMOD_K

[Yonghong Song]

On 12/6/23 11:08 PM, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> Currently, there are two test cases with same name
> "ALU64_SMOD_X: -7 % 2 = -1", the first one is right,
> the second one should be ALU64_SMOD_K because its
> code is BPF_ALU64 | BPF_MOD | BPF_K.
>
> Before:
> test_bpf: #170 ALU64_SMOD_X: -7 % 2 = -1 jited:1 4 PASS
> test_bpf: #171 ALU64_SMOD_X: -7 % 2 = -1 jited:1 4 PASS
>
> After:
> test_bpf: #170 ALU64_SMOD_X: -7 % 2 = -1 jited:1 4 PASS
> test_bpf: #171 ALU64_SMOD_K: -7 % 2 = -1 jited:1 4 PASS
>
> Fixes: daabb2b098e0 ("bpf/tests: add tests for cpuv4 instructions")
> Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@xxxxxxxxx>