Re: [PATCH v10 4/8] selftest/bpf: Enable verifier selftest for powerpc64

> selftest/bpf: Enable verifier selftest for powerpc64
>
> This patch enables arch specifier "__powerpc64" in verifier
> selftest for ppc64. Power 32-bit would require separate
> handling. Changes tested for 64-bit only.

This isn't a bug, but would it read more precisely to name the new tag
as __arch_powerpc64 (matching the macro added in bpf_misc.h) rather
than "__powerpc64"?  The actual macro expands to __arch("POWERPC64"),
and "__powerpc64__" is the compiler predefine used in test_loader.c,
but there's no __powerpc64 tag itself.

Also, would phrasing it imperatively match the series style better?
For example, "Add __arch_powerpc64 so verifier tests can gate on ppc64"
instead of "This patch enables..."?

> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_misc.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_misc.h
> index 5eacf1b432521..c35359c97e44b 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_misc.h
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_misc.h
> @@ -159,6 +159,7 @@
>  #define __arch_riscv64		__arch("RISCV64")
>  #define __arch_s390x		__arch("s390x")
>  #define __arch_loongarch	__arch("LOONGARCH")
> +#define __arch_powerpc64	__arch("POWERPC64")
>  #define __caps_unpriv(caps)	__test_tag("test_caps_unpriv=" EXPAND_QUOTE(caps))
>  #define __load_if_JITed()	__test_tag("load_mode=jited")
>  #define __load_if_no_JITed()	__test_tag("load_mode=no_jited")
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_loader.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_loader.c
> index 07807757b518d..221393f2a8ef4 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_loader.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_loader.c
> @@ -378,6 +378,7 @@ enum arch {
>  	ARCH_RISCV64	= 0x8,
>  	ARCH_S390X	= 0x10,
>  	ARCH_LOONGARCH	= 0x20,
> +	ARCH_POWERPC64	= 0x40,
>  };
>
>  static int get_current_arch(void)
> @@ -392,6 +393,8 @@ static int get_current_arch(void)
>  	return ARCH_S390X;
>  #elif defined(__loongarch__)
>  	return ARCH_LOONGARCH;
> +#elif defined(__powerpc64__)
> +	return ARCH_POWERPC64;
>  #endif
>  	return ARCH_UNKNOWN;
>  }
> @@ -585,6 +588,8 @@ static int parse_test_spec(struct test_loader *tester,
>  				arch = ARCH_S390X;
>  			} else if (strcmp(val, "LOONGARCH") == 0) {
>  				arch = ARCH_LOONGARCH;
> +			} else if (strcmp(val, "POWERPC64") == 0) {
> +				arch = ARCH_POWERPC64;
>  			} else {
>  				PRINT_FAIL("bad arch spec: '%s'\n", val);
>  				err = -EINVAL;



---
AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md

CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/30981212698