From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out30-133.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-133.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.133]) (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 5319F45C14; Fri, 29 Nov 2024 04:11:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.133 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1732853507; cv=none; b=pkSVUemamAaYCxwKGa/HGMW1ojhosVkx6h5S54CizTqkePjpRExrmsXM35sjS0Ykb/k31M5o3vfOB1eAAw+MUuyu+CQNTWYQW0v6darSLHE78SkQMeqpM660q0OZ+5qQfqvrhkzXpJpeIheLVmiOEgqPSFHS4NLgIIJ3uMSdCgY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1732853507; c=relaxed/simple; bh=wr1uJvr4G8JBoARQHlYSi9m1EVlinWeH0+nVZKa6aHw=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=dSP7ZWba6A9lrtTue1049rGjeEAhJFLqNt1dy12OW1HJQmT1iXtYedpcDe4KdNDitnMMvkgU+pC+mHtSoKblxtCCZDr6V9GQDl/lDFmnj+1RhANSEomuURHbAxHJD8g2uxuf46dG/JnyRwN8dJnLwJr0bi8q+1Xm3VgtKSj93/Q= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b=iB8vO8Nc; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.133 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b="iB8vO8Nc" DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.alibaba.com; s=default; t=1732853494; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From:Content-Type; bh=VVRHyGfrwrHOIjO/cmIEiDL6rMRsXuS3jPw6EV6dE+A=; b=iB8vO8NcPn80Bno1ckLh06UZDRlDC/AjTRKa1o7rdhanKGWZ2mHkpZqZQUBfIGAIYcUfxU8SneB1fWMP7FczA0ikXLfQRnAtOlgE5eAdoclFay+xHOCQnK0oB0LbGvwDXps0QBZQauYzT7H43kbMp2P00Sr37OCdJG53SOMA+HE= Received: from 30.221.148.39(mailfrom:alibuda@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0WKSUOK6_1732853491 cluster:ay36) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Fri, 29 Nov 2024 12:11:32 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2024 12:11:29 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 4/4] bpf/selftests: add simple selftest for bpf_smc_ops To: Martin KaFai Lau , Zhu Yanjun Cc: kgraul@linux.ibm.com, wenjia@linux.ibm.com, jaka@linux.ibm.com, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, song@kernel.org, sdf@google.com, haoluo@google.com, yhs@fb.com, edumazet@google.com, john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org, jolsa@kernel.org, guwen@linux.alibaba.com, kuba@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, dtcccc@linux.alibaba.com References: <1729737768-124596-1-git-send-email-alibuda@linux.alibaba.com> <1729737768-124596-5-git-send-email-alibuda@linux.alibaba.com> <8c06240b-540b-472f-974f-d2db80d90c22@linux.dev> <0a8c2285-29c2-4a79-b704-c2baeac90b70@linux.dev> Content-Language: en-US From: "D. Wythe" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 11/26/24 7:32 AM, Martin KaFai Lau wrote: > On 11/25/24 2:52 AM, Zhu Yanjun wrote: >>>> # ./test_progs -t smc >>>> #27/1    bpf_smc/load:OK >>>> #27      bpf_smc:OK >>>> Summary: 1/1 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED >>>> >>>> The above command is based on several kernel modules. After these dependent kernel modules are >>>> loaded, then can run the above command successfully. > >>> >>> This is indeed a problem, a better way may be to create a separate testing directory for SMC, and >>> we are trying to do this. >> >> Got it. In the latest patch series, if a test program in sample/bpf can verify this bpf feature, >> it is better than a selftest program in the directory tools/ testing/selftests/bpf. >> >> I delved into this selftest tool. It seems that this selftest tool only makes the basic checks. A >> test program in sample/bpf can do more. > > sample(s)/bpf? No new test should be added to samples/bpf which is obsolete. The bpf CI only runs > tests under selftests/bpf. > > There is selftests/bpf/config to tell the bpf CI about what kconfig needs to turn on. Is it acceptable to add a new kconfig to selftests/bpf/config? I don't know that... To solve the compilation problem of this test, we originally planned to add a separate testing directory to SMC. If adding a new kconfig is acceptable, it will make this patch simpler. Best wishes, D. Wythe