Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 11/13] selftests/bpf: Add inline-asm and subprog tests for R0:R2 returns

On 8/12/26 4:29 PM, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> On Wed, 2026-08-12 at 14:08 -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>> test_progs tracks whether bpf_testmod.ko is loaded in env.has_testmod
>>> and sets it to false if load_bpf_testmod() fails. Every other
>>> testmod-dependent test in the tree checks both the architecture
>>> capability and env.has_testmod before attempting to use testmod kfuncs.
>>> Examples include bpf_cookie.c, iters.c, ksyms_module.c, btf_module.c,
>>> btf_tag.c, tp_btf_nullable.c, module_fentry_shadow.c, and
>>> core_reloc.c.
>>>
>>> Should test_run() fold env.has_testmod into its guard to match the
>>> established pattern, so that the test skips cleanly in all environments
>>> where bpf_testmod is unavailable?
>> Yes, we should add env.has_testmod.
> Note that env.has_testmod handling is inconsistent across the testsuite.
> If anything, I think this flag has to be dropped entirely.
> I'd suggest to ignore this llm suggestion.

Okay, I will ignore env.has_testmod thing. I will use RUN_TEST() for this patch as well.