From: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
Daniel Diaz <daniel.diaz@linaro.org>,
Veronika Kabatova <vkabatov@redhat.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
Guillaume Tucker <guillaume.tucker@collabora.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: Skip BPF seftests by default
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 08:53:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <94010653-0cb3-d804-7410-a571480d6db2@linuxfoundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201217130735.GA4708@sirena.org.uk>
On 12/17/20 6:07 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 04:05:58PM -0600, Seth Forshee wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 06:52:33PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>>> as part of the wider kselftest build by specifying SKIP_TARGETS,
>>> including setting an empty SKIP_TARGETS to build everything. They can
>>> also continue to build the BPF selftests individually in cases where
>>> they are specifically focused on BPF.
>
>> Why not just remove the line which adds bpf to TARGETS? This has the
>> same effect, but doesn't require an emtpy SKIP_TARGETS to run them. We
>> have testing scripts which use 'make TARGETS=bpf ...' which will have to
>> be updated, and I doubt we are the only ones.
>
I would prefer leaving bpf in the main Makefile TARGETS. This will be
useful to users that have their systems setup for bpf builds.
>> I also feel like this creates confusing semantics around SKIP_TARGETS.
>> If I don't supply a value then I don't get the bpf selftests, but then
>> if I try to use SKIP_TARGETS to skip some other test suddenly I do get
>> them. That's counterintuitive.
>
> That's what I did first, it's also messy just differently. If you
> don't add bpf to TARGETS then if you do what's needed to get it building
> it becomes inconvenient to run it as part of running everything else at
> the top level since you need to enumerate all the targets. It felt like
> skipping is what we're actually doing here and it seems like those
> actively working with BPF will be used to having to update things in
> their environment. People who start using SKIP_TARGETS are *probably*
> going to find out about it from the Makefile anyway so will see the
> default that's there.
>
> Fundamentally having such demanding build dependencies is always going
> to result in some kind of mess, it's just where we push it.
>
>> I also wanted to point out that the net/test_bpf.sh selftest requires
>> having the test_bpf module from the bpf selftest build. So when the bpf
>> selftests aren't built this test is guaranteed to fail. Though it would
>> be nice if the net selftests didn't require building the bpf self tests
>> in order to pass.
>
> Right, that's a separate issue - the net tests should really skip that
> if they don't have BPF, as we do for other runtime detectable
> dependencies. It's nowhere near as severe as failing to build though.
>
Correct. This has to be handled as a run-time dependency check and skip
instead of fail.
thanks,
-- Shuah
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-17 15:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-10 18:52 [PATCH] selftests: Skip BPF seftests by default Mark Brown
2020-12-10 19:11 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-12-10 23:41 ` Shuah Khan
2020-12-11 12:46 ` Mark Brown
2020-12-16 22:05 ` Seth Forshee
2020-12-17 13:07 ` Mark Brown
2020-12-17 15:53 ` Shuah Khan [this message]
2020-12-17 18:32 ` Shuah Khan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=94010653-0cb3-d804-7410-a571480d6db2@linuxfoundation.org \
--to=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=daniel.diaz@linaro.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=guillaume.tucker@collabora.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=kafai@fb.com \
--cc=khilman@baylibre.com \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=seth.forshee@canonical.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
--cc=vkabatov@redhat.com \
--cc=yhs@fb.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox