Re: [PATCH bpf-next] selftests/bpf: don't count skipped reg_bounds cases as skipped tests

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Wed, Oct 28, 2026 at 02:19 PM Vineet Gupta <vineet.gupta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> @@ -1581,7 +1582,7 @@ static int verify_case_op(enum num_t init_t, enum num_t cond_t,
>  	    !assert_reg_state_eq(&tr2, &te2, "true_reg2")) {
>  		if (reg_state_needs_two_arcs(&fe1) || reg_state_needs_two_arcs(&fe2) ||
>  		    reg_state_needs_two_arcs(&te1) || reg_state_needs_two_arcs(&te2)) {
> -			test__skip();
> +			*skipped = true;
>  			return 0;
>  		}

Applied. Thanks.

Eduard,
unrelated to this patch, needs_two_arcs() returns true for an unknown
register:

  needs_two_arcs(U32, [0; U32_MAX], S32, [S32_MIN; S32_MAX])
    lo = 0x80000000, hi = 0x7fffffff
    lo > hi && 0 <= hi && U32_MAX >= lo

That's the full circle. It is one arc.
A random 64-bit range has unknown low 32 bits.
So reg_bounds_rand_*_u64_u64 and the like ignore every MISMATCH, it seems.

Should it return false when r1 or r2 is the full range?