Skip to content

Commit 1c26ac6

Browse files
andreimateiborkmann
authored andcommitted
selftest/bpf: Fix rst formatting in readme
A couple of places in the readme had invalid rst formatting causing the rendering to be off. This patch fixes them with minimal edits. Signed-off-by: Andrei Matei <andreimatei1@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20201122022205.57229-2-andreimatei1@gmail.com
1 parent 05a98d7 commit 1c26ac6

File tree

1 file changed

+15
-13
lines changed

1 file changed

+15
-13
lines changed

tools/testing/selftests/bpf/README.rst

Lines changed: 15 additions & 13 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -33,11 +33,12 @@ The verifier will reject such code with above error.
3333
At insn 18 the r7 is indeed unbounded. The later insn 19 checks the bounds and
3434
the insn 20 undoes map_value addition. It is currently impossible for the
3535
verifier to understand such speculative pointer arithmetic.
36-
Hence
37-
https://reviews.llvm.org/D85570
38-
addresses it on the compiler side. It was committed on llvm 12.
36+
Hence `this patch`__ addresses it on the compiler side. It was committed on llvm 12.
37+
38+
__ https://reviews.llvm.org/D85570
3939

4040
The corresponding C code
41+
4142
.. code-block:: c
4243
4344
for (int i = 0; i < MAX_CGROUPS_PATH_DEPTH; i++) {
@@ -80,10 +81,11 @@ The symptom for ``bpf_iter/netlink`` looks like
8081
17: (7b) *(u64 *)(r7 +0) = r2
8182
only read is supported
8283
83-
This is due to a llvm BPF backend bug. The fix
84-
https://reviews.llvm.org/D78466
84+
This is due to a llvm BPF backend bug. `The fix`__
8585
has been pushed to llvm 10.x release branch and will be
86-
available in 10.0.1. The fix is available in llvm 11.0.0 trunk.
86+
available in 10.0.1. The patch is available in llvm 11.0.0 trunk.
87+
88+
__ https://reviews.llvm.org/D78466
8789

8890
BPF CO-RE-based tests and Clang version
8991
=======================================
@@ -97,11 +99,11 @@ them to Clang/LLVM. These sub-tests are going to be skipped if Clang is too
9799
old to support them, they shouldn't cause build failures or runtime test
98100
failures:
99101

100-
- __builtin_btf_type_id() ([0], [1], [2]);
101-
- __builtin_preserve_type_info(), __builtin_preserve_enum_value() ([3], [4]).
102+
- __builtin_btf_type_id() [0_, 1_, 2_];
103+
- __builtin_preserve_type_info(), __builtin_preserve_enum_value() [3_, 4_].
102104

103-
[0] https://reviews.llvm.org/D74572
104-
[1] https://reviews.llvm.org/D74668
105-
[2] https://reviews.llvm.org/D85174
106-
[3] https://reviews.llvm.org/D83878
107-
[4] https://reviews.llvm.org/D83242
105+
.. _0: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74572
106+
.. _1: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74668
107+
.. _2: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85174
108+
.. _3: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83878
109+
.. _4: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83242

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)