Re: [PATCH v11 3/8] selftests/bpf: Fixing powerpc JIT disassembly failure

> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/jit_disasm_helpers.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/jit_disasm_helpers.c
> index 3558fe10e28cf..c4aa1d69d3bbf 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/jit_disasm_helpers.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/jit_disasm_helpers.c

[ ... ]

> @@ -225,9 +227,30 @@ int get_jited_program_text(int fd, char *text, size_t text_sz)
>  	if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "bpf_prog_get_info_by_fd #2"))
>  		goto out;
>
> +	/*
> +	 * last 8 bytes contains dummy_trampoline address in JIT
> +	 * output on 64-bit and last 4 bytes on 32-bit powerpc,
> +	 * which can't disassemble to a valid instruction.
> +	 */
> +	triple = LLVMGetDefaultTargetTriple();
> +	if (triple) {
> +		if (strstr(triple, "powerpc64") || strstr(triple, "ppc64"))
> +			trunc_len = 8;
> +		else if (strstr(triple, "powerpc") || strstr(triple, "ppc"))
> +			trunc_len = 4;
> +		LLVMDisposeMessage(triple);
> +	}
> +
>  	for (pc = 0, i = 0; i < jited_funcs; ++i) {
> +

This isn't a bug, but are the two new blank lines inside this loop
intentional? Dropping them would keep the diff to just the truncation
logic and match how the loops in disasm_one_func() are laid out.

>  		fprintf(text_out, "func #%d:\n", i);
>  		/*
>  		 * Disabled JIT have zero func_lens, hence underflow
>  		 */
>  		disasm_len = func_lens[i] > trunc_len ?
>  					func_lens[i] - trunc_len : 0;
>  		disasm_one_func(text_out, image + pc, disasm_len);
> +
>  		fprintf(text_out, "\n");
>  		pc += func_lens[i];
>  	}

> selftests/bpf: Fixing powerpc JIT disassembly failure

This isn't a bug, but would the subject read better in the imperative
mood, "selftests/bpf: Fix powerpc JIT disassembly failure", to match
the rest of the series?


---
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/31176427801