On 06/02/2017 17:09, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 2/5/17 3:14 PM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>> - if (unpriv && test->prog_type)
>> - continue;
>> + if (!test->prog_type) {
>> + if (!unpriv)
>> + set_admin(false);
>> + printf("#%d/u %s ", i, test->descr);
>> + do_test_single(test, true, &passes, &errors);
>> + if (!unpriv)
>> + set_admin(true);
>> + }
>>
>> - printf("#%d %s ", i, test->descr);
>> - do_test_single(test, unpriv, &passes, &errors);
>> + if (!unpriv) {
>> + printf("#%d/p %s ", i, test->descr);
>> + do_test_single(test, false, &passes, &errors);
>> + }
>
> great idea.
> Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <a...@kernel.org>
>
> as far as other patches.. we need to figure out how to avoid conflicts
> between net-next and Arnaldo's tree where Joe's patches went.A merge between this series and Arnaldo's tree works fine. The only dependency is between patches 6 and 7. > > Mickael, > can you see some way of splitting the patch set between trees? > Like above test_verfier.c improvement needs to go into net-next. > The rest can go via perf > > OK, I'll send a first series with the patches from 1 to 5 for the perf tree and a second series with the 6th and 7th patches (touching tools/testing/selftests/bpf only) to net-next.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
