From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtpout-04.galae.net (smtpout-04.galae.net [185.171.202.116]) (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 45B3B21FF47; Fri, 16 Jan 2026 07:58:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.171.202.116 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1768550282; cv=none; b=cb/wA9PGVJnSfXNgNZiIxYOrWqaAJWPLj6LhfKq2ILnhKJQ82PL20bjeXTgrWeK0cbtNvQ2WaZWDwaob8YSXfiHDvXNObBi+PIgdDrKVXwrJQgkP0bJ9KBkXM3zSsVEY/naJ0tqxkWD+NAsLfuWFDbqyJb/daoMR1A2OMO4Txs8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1768550282; c=relaxed/simple; bh=cASj+FIW6AwiVSw8nEyxkZB7wqaoLxu/2R8gfOjJaas=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Subject:Cc:From:To: References:In-Reply-To; b=pRIDfkr527wNmKl+PSZv1u5t1PmximDWRLYl3Tk28w4/x9dIjsy/tRmVlfdAWrwKvaUa55796nh98u7uSwlrLDaiBapdYCDhgqZ6vRdN70iWJQM0aqxBus8qazWQnvAGr5m9NSTr/2LSkzfa/Dj3/ynfzAiXFZIIGMvJOCxU61Q= 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=q+jD3U4q; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.171.202.116 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="q+jD3U4q" Received: from smtpout-01.galae.net (smtpout-01.galae.net [212.83.139.233]) by smtpout-04.galae.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0CDDC1F1F5; Fri, 16 Jan 2026 07:57:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.galae.net (mail.galae.net [212.83.136.155]) by smtpout-01.galae.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5967F60732; Fri, 16 Jan 2026 07:57:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Mailerdaemon) with ESMTPSA id 6C31C10B68571; Fri, 16 Jan 2026 08:57:53 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bootlin.com; s=dkim; t=1768550276; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:cc:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:references; bh=cASj+FIW6AwiVSw8nEyxkZB7wqaoLxu/2R8gfOjJaas=; b=q+jD3U4qOF+rUsN/V6UgWvloifkFmP3OVxPGhA8/JCoMOWnPm6VIpsmmH2vVXp2ct1f3QI mHLa8oLqs4LAvXzFIwxArkkaFVAofot1McIq9cmwzslLF8Yr7EjIkogRsAfLov4dbWvouq Tmw3LW9JZflIRt39Fq+QHA8vJyCTXOR75Ue5TRpCdqTIA/OWoHHwUyMtdHv886jMFBD31w j8MsM1FB9NygXYAtIplgM4BAuoL3CNQYRxksTKBVKY5aFbXZ3IPMQHuljmwXfuqQ1Euovm OJPlJ/BN4GKF4UrT9LnVaOQgtL4mYgYK9aN/fbv3xJQaJRToih1tyEKmmXCBZA== 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: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 08:57:52 +0100 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] selftests/bpf: add a new runner for bpftool tests Cc: "Andrii Nakryiko" , "Eduard Zingerman" , "Alexei Starovoitov" , "Daniel Borkmann" , "Martin KaFai Lau" , "Song Liu" , "Yonghong Song" , "John Fastabend" , "KP Singh" , "Stanislav Fomichev" , "Hao Luo" , "Jiri Olsa" , "Shuah Khan" , , "Bastien Curutchet" , "Thomas Petazzoni" , , , From: =?utf-8?q?Alexis_Lothor=C3=A9?= To: "Andrii Nakryiko" , =?utf-8?b?QWxleGlzIExvdGhvcsOpIChlQlBGIEZvdW5kYXRpb24p?= X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0-0-g5549850facc2 References: <20260114-bpftool-tests-v1-0-cfab1cc9beaf@bootlin.com> In-Reply-To: X-Last-TLS-Session-Version: TLSv1.3 Hi Andrii, On Thu Jan 15, 2026 at 6:58 PM CET, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 12:59=E2=80=AFAM Alexis Lothor=C3=A9 (eBPF Founda= tion) > wrote: >> >> Hello, >> this series is part of the larger effort aiming to convert all >> standalone tests to the CI runners so that they are properly executed on >> patches submission. >> >> Some of those tests are validating bpftool behavior(test_bpftool_map.sh, >> test_bpftool_metadata.sh, test_bpftool_synctypes.py, test_bpftool.py...) >> and so they do not integrate well in test_progs. This series proposes to > > Can you elaborate why they do not integrate well? In my mind, > test_progs should be the only runner into which we invest effort > (parallel tests, all the different filtering, etc; why would we have > to reimplement subsets of this). The fact that we have test_maps and > test_verifier is historical and if we had enough time we'd merge all > of them into test_progs. > > What exactly in test_progs would prevent us from implementing bpftool > test runner? I don't think there is any strong technical blocker preventing from integrating those tests directly into test_progs. That's rather about the fact that test_progs tests depends (almost) exclusively on libbpf/skeletons. Those bpftool tests rather need to directly execute bpftool and parse its stdout output, so I thought that it made sense to have a dedicated runner for this. If I'm wrong and so if those tests should rather be moved in the test_progs runner (eg to avoid duplicating the runner features), I'm fine with it. Any additional opinion on this is welcome. Thanks, Alexis --=20 Alexis Lothor=C3=A9, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com