From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtpout-02.galae.net (smtpout-02.galae.net [185.246.84.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DF07234964 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2026 13:00:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.246.84.56 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1768827644; cv=none; b=Hkfe2liH1UDRYjvBjJzxizivTP9nZ8TrwzWL1R9tVkp1XrlSg2R5IxFDPnRfvlHqXHW1gwJeykeWbsZlL8mpyP4h5Vli9Yc5uJ+hEAlCaKqwnvo0VdboWLf/uoQJ3YHsinT+ftZ2yrHH/nDJt46+6dCf56cu7noSn06wIujtjnw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1768827644; c=relaxed/simple; bh=PXUujVm6ApgjcxVKO1Klzm4Mkx9p3MJapHrETbhtdzI=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Subject:Cc:From:To: References:In-Reply-To; b=BjEUwS0iVnc6GPClmQWK8js6Wda8yL0jGf7FX6+OvkXsiIc/FlacnxwtUVIIzNEzHFLAtR1uH6TPBKFtlrM4FXK1Pel/y8cGFn2yAvXPkEDsh3iXK2O5i2BjYeXDc34dnh1MrZj5xakylRszD1j9Fto60yppCxEh8WTPC314TTw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=bootlin.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=bootlin.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bootlin.com header.i=@bootlin.com header.b=roJXIYqj; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.246.84.56 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=bootlin.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=bootlin.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bootlin.com header.i=@bootlin.com header.b="roJXIYqj" Received: from smtpout-01.galae.net (smtpout-01.galae.net [212.83.139.233]) by smtpout-02.galae.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6C891A2953; Mon, 19 Jan 2026 13:00:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.galae.net (mail.galae.net [212.83.136.155]) by smtpout-01.galae.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B154260731; Mon, 19 Jan 2026 13:00:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Mailerdaemon) with ESMTPSA id 5E3B710B6AFB8; Mon, 19 Jan 2026 14:00:35 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bootlin.com; s=dkim; t=1768827639; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:cc:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:references; bh=PXUujVm6ApgjcxVKO1Klzm4Mkx9p3MJapHrETbhtdzI=; b=roJXIYqjd+b+rNE/CDpmEhK2jw0yzuK9/7UCCLggWw8W9IhhkPpYBl1eot4Pg7ewVfR9kt 5nyNt54hYgcJCmJsGH6GSB53U4C2QIyeOxjTW3eTO0+rPXSflDHnPi7RsukKJKfke0df9d 0xJWjaw8JBrjkVtrWHZcYc16m4uQnpNcGvZZ70neaTws/eUTze+iUEGBFcDt0CNxCtO7s5 1bnR3NUpRTZivsPsdK0vfsXXQY43i77TJDKpk7CkQW9Ss8G7Jvm3FeuXaknDh1+N268w4r CBBfCZkef2wuAsohh5+fQJw2SZQWWmY2+vDUzTgbMbN4+IsKRZqUDnNCYAY8eg== Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 14:00:34 +0100 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] selftests/bpf: Support when CONFIG_VXLAN=m Cc: , , , , , , , , , , , From: =?utf-8?q?Alexis_Lothor=C3=A9?= To: "Alan Maguire" , =?utf-8?q?Alexis_Lothor=C3=A9?= , X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0-0-g5549850facc2 References: <20260115163457.146267-1-alan.maguire@oracle.com> <87900b12-c836-4692-ad7d-b1997df806d8@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <87900b12-c836-4692-ad7d-b1997df806d8@oracle.com> X-Last-TLS-Session-Version: TLSv1.3 Hi Alan, On Fri Jan 16, 2026 at 10:32 AM CET, Alan Maguire wrote: > On 16/01/2026 08:30, Alexis Lothor=C3=A9 wrote: >> Hello, >>=20 >> On Thu Jan 15, 2026 at 5:34 PM CET, Alan Maguire wrote: >>> If CONFIG_VXLAN is 'm', struct vxlanhdr will not be in vmlinux.h. >>> Add a ___local variant to support cases where vxlan is a module. >>=20 >> Just a naive question: for ebpf selftests, aren't we assuming a >> dependency on a "fixed" kernel configuration (ie >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/{config,config.vm,config.> enables most of the features as built-in ?=20 >>=20 > > It's a good question - my take here is that we also need to remember=20 > that most folks interactions with BPF happen via distro kernels. Most dis= tros=20 > tend to modularize their configs more extensively, and they also want to = use=20 > the BPF selftests to qualify the particular config combination they have > so that they can be sure that users have a good BPF experience. > Often issues arise from this, and distro folks either report or post > fixes. This is all good, so if the only cost is a bit more flexibility > in the test environment, I'd say it's well worth supporting that. In > particular blockers to selftests compilation cause problems for this > process. > > There are of course cases where having a very old toolchain or a highly > incompatible configuration that aren't supportable, but in general where = there > is low-hanging fruit in making tests a bit more flexible, it's worth doin= g I=20 > think. With a bit of delay: ok, thanks for your input. To clarify, my point was not really about challenging your change but rather that I was not sure about the policy here; supporting only the CI selftests configuration, VS supporting other kernel configurations like distro configs (at the cost of duplicating a bit kernel data strutures definitions). Thanks, Alexis --=20 Alexis Lothor=C3=A9, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com