See the previous patch: the API was wrong, we were provided the pointer
to the value, not the actual struct bpf_wq *.

Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@kernel.org>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_experimental.h  | 2 +-
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/wq.c          | 8 ++++----
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/wq_failures.c | 4 ++--
 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_experimental.h b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_experimental.h
index eede6fc2ccb4..828556cdc2f0 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_experimental.h
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_experimental.h
@@ -552,7 +552,7 @@ extern void bpf_iter_css_destroy(struct bpf_iter_css *it) __weak __ksym;
 extern int bpf_wq_init(struct bpf_wq *wq, void *p__map, unsigned int flags) __weak __ksym;
 extern int bpf_wq_start(struct bpf_wq *wq, unsigned int flags) __weak __ksym;
 extern int bpf_wq_set_callback_impl(struct bpf_wq *wq,
-		int (callback_fn)(void *map, int *key, struct bpf_wq *wq),
+		int (callback_fn)(void *map, int *key, void *value),
 		unsigned int flags__k, void *aux__ign) __ksym;
 #define bpf_wq_set_callback(timer, cb, flags) \
 	bpf_wq_set_callback_impl(timer, cb, flags, NULL)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/wq.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/wq.c
index 49e712acbf60..e5ac0df59b86 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/wq.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/wq.c
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ __u32 ok;
 __u32 ok_sleepable;
 
 static int test_elem_callback(void *map, int *key,
-		int (callback_fn)(void *map, int *key, struct bpf_wq *wq))
+		int (callback_fn)(void *map, int *key, void *value))
 {
 	struct elem init = {}, *val;
 	struct bpf_wq *wq;
@@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ static int test_elem_callback(void *map, int *key,
 }
 
 static int test_hmap_elem_callback(void *map, int *key,
-		int (callback_fn)(void *map, int *key, struct bpf_wq *wq))
+		int (callback_fn)(void *map, int *key, void *value))
 {
 	struct hmap_elem init = {}, *val;
 	struct bpf_wq *wq;
@@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ static int test_hmap_elem_callback(void *map, int *key,
 }
 
 /* callback for non sleepable workqueue */
-static int wq_callback(void *map, int *key, struct bpf_wq *work)
+static int wq_callback(void *map, int *key, void *value)
 {
 	bpf_kfunc_common_test();
 	ok |= (1 << *key);
@@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ static int wq_callback(void *map, int *key, struct bpf_wq *work)
 }
 
 /* callback for sleepable workqueue */
-static int wq_cb_sleepable(void *map, int *key, struct bpf_wq *work)
+static int wq_cb_sleepable(void *map, int *key, void *value)
 {
 	bpf_kfunc_call_test_sleepable();
 	ok_sleepable |= (1 << *key);
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/wq_failures.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/wq_failures.c
index 4cbdb425f223..25b51a72fe0f 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/wq_failures.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/wq_failures.c
@@ -28,14 +28,14 @@ struct {
 } lru SEC(".maps");
 
 /* callback for non sleepable workqueue */
-static int wq_callback(void *map, int *key, struct bpf_wq *work)
+static int wq_callback(void *map, int *key, void *value)
 {
 	bpf_kfunc_common_test();
 	return 0;
 }
 
 /* callback for sleepable workqueue */
-static int wq_cb_sleepable(void *map, int *key, struct bpf_wq *work)
+static int wq_cb_sleepable(void *map, int *key, void *value)
 {
 	bpf_kfunc_call_test_sleepable();
 	return 0;

-- 
2.44.0

On Fri, 2024-07-05 at 15:44 +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> See the previous patch: the API was wrong, we were provided the pointer
> to the value, not the actual struct bpf_wq *.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@kernel.org>
> ---

Would it make sense to update one of the tests, so that it checks the
specific value put in the map?
E.g. extend struct elem:

struct elem {
	int answer_to_the_ultimate_question;
	struct bpf_wq w;
};

And put something in there?

[...]

On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 1:54 PM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2024-07-05 at 15:44 +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> > See the previous patch: the API was wrong, we were provided the pointer
> > to the value, not the actual struct bpf_wq *.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@kernel.org>
> > ---
>
> Would it make sense to update one of the tests, so that it checks the
> specific value put in the map?
> E.g. extend struct elem:
>
> struct elem {
>         int answer_to_the_ultimate_question;
>         struct bpf_wq w;
> };
>
> And put something in there?

+1
let's tweak the selftest.
pw-bot: cr

On Jul 06 2024, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 1:54 PM Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2024-07-05 at 15:44 +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> > > See the previous patch: the API was wrong, we were provided the pointer
> > > to the value, not the actual struct bpf_wq *.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@kernel.org>
> > > ---
> >
> > Would it make sense to update one of the tests, so that it checks the
> > specific value put in the map?
> > E.g. extend struct elem:
> >
> > struct elem {
> >         int answer_to_the_ultimate_question;
> >         struct bpf_wq w;
> > };
> >
> > And put something in there?
> 
> +1
> let's tweak the selftest.

OK, v2 it is then :)

Cheers,
Benjamin