On Tue, 2025-07-22 at 23:20 +0200, Paul Chaignon wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 02:29:47PM -0700, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> > On Sat, 2025-07-19 at 16:22 +0200, Paul Chaignon wrote:
> > > This patch updates the range refinement logic in the reg_bound test to
> > > match the new logic from the previous commit. Without this change, tests
> > > would fail because we end with more precise ranges than the tests
> > > expect.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul Chaignon <paul.chaignon@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> >
> > Acked-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks for the review!
>
> >
> > > .../testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/reg_bounds.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/reg_bounds.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/reg_bounds.c
> > > index 39d42271cc46..e261b0e872db 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/reg_bounds.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/reg_bounds.c
> > > @@ -465,6 +465,20 @@ static struct range range_refine(enum num_t x_t, struct range x, enum num_t y_t,
> > > return range_improve(x_t, x, x_swap);
> > > }
> > >
> > > + if (!t_is_32(x_t) && !t_is_32(y_t) && x_t != y_t) {
> >
> > Nit: I'd swap x and y if necessary, to avoid a second branch.
>
> That works, but we'd have to swap them back before we hit range_improve
> below.
I missed the part that x_t/range need to be returned,
please ignore my suggestions, patch is good as it is.
[...]
