Re: [PATCH bpf-next v7 0/9] Introduce arena library and runtime

["Alexei Starovoitov" <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>]

On Fri Apr 17, 2026 at 11:03 AM PDT, Emil Tsalapatis wrote:
>>> libarena is different in that it's BPF code we distribute as source.
>>> Plus, the test runner is an example of how to set up the arena state.
>>> It's very little code and automatically identifies the selftests without
>>> having to explicitly enumerate them, so it's not extra maintenance burden.
>>> For followup patches it's been 0 LOC to either the libarena selftest or the
>>> test_progs test.
>>
>> I think what Kumar is saying is that we have only one runner in CI:
>> test_progs, so all libarena tests need to be covered by test_progs.
>
> In that case I misunderstood. I agree that everything should be tested
> by test_progs. There's currently the ASAN version of libarena missing,
> but we can add it and turn it off if the compiler doesn't support it.
>
> There is the secondary question: Do we want to have a standalone
> libarena runner in addition to the one in test_progs in the codebase?
> Imo we do, for the reasons above.

I think it's fine to have standalone libarena runner as well,
but it may bit rot, since CI won't be running it.