On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 2:25 PM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 11:55 AM Andrii Nakryiko > <andrii.nakry...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 2:28 AM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > From: Cong Wang <cong.w...@bytedance.com> > > > > > > This patchset introduces a new bpf hash map which has timeout. > > > Patch 1 is a preparation, patch 2 is the implementation of timeout > > > map, patch 3 contains a test case for timeout map. Please check each > > > patch description for more details. > > > > > > --- > > > > This patch set seems to be breaking existing selftests. Please take a > > look ([0]). > > Interesting, looks unrelated to my patches but let me double check.
Cc'ing Andrey... Looks like the failure is due to the addition of a new member to struct htab_elem. Any reason why it is hard-coded as 64 in check_hash()? And what's the point of verifying its size? htab_elem should be only visible to the kernel itself. I can certainly change 64 to whatever its new size is, but I do wonder why the test is there. Thanks.
