Re: [PATCH 2/5] tests default_vmlinux_btf: Introduce test for using BTF by default

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 11:54:12AM -0800, Eduard Zingerman wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-11-19 at 16:49 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > Lgtm.

And I'm taking the lgtm as an Acked-by, maybe a Reviewed-by?

- Arnaldo

> > > Would it make sense to move this patch to the end of the series?
> > > In case someone does a bisect and runs the tests to find some regression.
> > 
> > Humm?
> > 
> > So you think it should be introduced only when it passes? I.e. when the
> > problem is fixed?
> 
> Right.
> 
> > My practice so far has been to reproduce the problem manually, write a
> > test, show that it detects the problem, fix, then show that the
> > regression test shows that the problem is not present anymore.
> 
> Yes, the downside would be that anyone trying out the fix would
> need to do some rebase to try the test w/o fix.
> 
> > I see your point about a bisection when running in the cset that
> > introduces the test case and in all before the fix is added will fail,
> > confusing the bisector or not allowing it to be automated :-\
> > 
> > So, yeah, probably, for automated bisection we should move it to after
> > the fix, when finishing the devel cycle, which is now, will do.
> 
> Fwiw, that's what folks enforce for bpf selftests ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.