From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFFEEC433E1 for ; Thu, 28 May 2020 18:17:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C72FD2073B for ; Thu, 28 May 2020 18:17:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="WAnI9POx" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2405737AbgE1SRx (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2020 14:17:53 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:49450 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2405735AbgE1SRw (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2020 14:17:52 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-x644.google.com (mail-pl1-x644.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::644]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A9E5C08C5C6; Thu, 28 May 2020 11:17:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x644.google.com with SMTP id d3so11949580pln.1; Thu, 28 May 2020 11:17:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=8g3nSFfFtHg0EndD9BPNck6fy8M7jE9Q+n5Ov4ytjrk=; b=WAnI9POxMpkbQaQbNspeUHKjPXcpM9EmTLCwqJMkrIzN7hhR7aF43SRqyzkdR6h9vi 5UJIIWmpJEhI49VRKD4wMcevFw6aF2jJW+q7lvvaSDYbHoTtqKeWEgAmcQguSMr3bkjA SXbcenhtySoUFh/ne76tkGQcJz7GpIprYMPIQNXBwJ4CATWOZb9CzC+anBXy84uX0HCA ZTsvsQXTtkbOEZjXXJ7OsprQn4yo+N8tgKc1TCtVCj2Asu6hnkNEfdeLbz4l1JS3rPGK QJDHRbuACS8IbVtDl3kVAMAeuEz+bjfVPtAczw/H9rdvX4nVt+xW83WAFnsubPYD8ptK cy/Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=8g3nSFfFtHg0EndD9BPNck6fy8M7jE9Q+n5Ov4ytjrk=; b=ZF8t0cX7cLHebN9jF5a7u8o48lkkhnLFoEr5b3CzhzB8dx1SFukaKTolyR3svLZ6WK w+W1RUTgYSqyzPYq5Sj35G18L/11rfZaEXaNDlkoWVTk3hJfUrlpRfcNS0IxF3iDdf5m CZ3s9akHNwobEB5LoRwydyukgf7IShuh16mGAbQmlkksNMpGioBcUmI1qzduICdkC1He 0HAMNWGfEcde8DOqdE3bXnXAhuCm1FifzjBLNSFuFGifC3stvqUrmi0icg5uo41/gClD 8dS79wSyOzGyVgVYHvFPFhc9cF0tPwU6ndAzBmCm+/yjr7nUq3klW2LYPhjbRAfArlmR SHCA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531qiggy/qGgBt8fb7nMeCTeb8a9TXM+z68pmm4/10xuKH+W8dNh s3KDmfgGabFhs6Chpgn+HA8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJykyNtwJKA4EUv9LnFy38v+pCS0kEbbwO/zOp4WepNs+0dB/AVEvHpGZq47PkgShETrtRTVHg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:344d:: with SMTP id lj13mr5358916pjb.160.1590689871737; Thu, 28 May 2020 11:17:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com ([2620:10d:c090:400::5:4a1c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y85sm5276401pfc.24.2020.05.28.11.17.49 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 28 May 2020 11:17:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 11:17:48 -0700 From: Alexei Starovoitov To: Yauheni Kaliuta Cc: Greg KH , Jiri Benc , shuah , Andrii Nakryiko , bpf , Jiri Olsa , Andrii Nakryiko , Daniel Borkmann , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/bpf: split -extras target to -static and -gen Message-ID: <20200528181748.fsc7vivfppe4rsx2@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> References: <20200528100557.20489f04@redhat.com> <20200528105631.GE3115014@kroah.com> <20200528161437.x3e2ddxmj6nlhvv7@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: bpf-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 08:10:57PM +0300, Yauheni Kaliuta wrote: > Hi, Alexei, > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 7:14 PM Alexei Starovoitov > wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:56:31PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 10:05:57AM +0200, Jiri Benc wrote: > > > > On Wed, 27 May 2020 15:23:13 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > > > I prefer to keep selftests/bpf install broken. > > > > > This forced marriage between kselftests and selftests/bpf > > > > > never worked well. I think it's a time to free them up from each other. > > > > > > > > Alexei, it would be great if you could cooperate with other people > > > > instead of pushing your own way. The selftests infrastructure was put > > > > to the kernel to have one place for testing. Inventing yet another way > > > > to add tests does not help anyone. You don't own the kernel. We're > > > > community, we should cooperate. > > > > > > I agree, we rely on the infrastructure of the kselftests framework so > > > that testing systems do not have to create "custom" frameworks to handle > > > all of the individual variants that could easily crop up here. > > > > > > Let's keep it easy for people to run and use these tests, to not do so > > > is to ensure that they are not used, which is the exact opposite goal of > > > creating tests. > > > > Greg, > > > > It is easy for people (bpf developers) to run and use the tests. > > Every developer runs them before submitting patches. > > New tests is a hard requirement for any new features. > > Maintainers run them for every push. > > > > What I was and will push back hard is when other people (not bpf developers) > > come back with an excuse that some CI system has a hard time running these > > tests. It's the problem of weak CI. That CI needs to be fixed. Not the tests. > > The example of this is that we already have github/libbpf CI that runs > > selftests/bpf just fine. Anyone who wants to do another CI are welcome to copy > > paste what already works instead of burdening people (bpf developers) who run > > and use existing tests. I frankly have no sympathy to folks who put their own > > interest of their CI development in front of bpf community of developers. > > The main job of CI is to help developers and maintainers. > > Where helping means to not impose new dumb rules on developers because CI > > framework is dumb. Fix CI instead. > > > > Any good reason why bpf selftests, residing under selftests/, should > be an exception? > "Breakages" is not, breakages are fixable. As I said early the location of bpf selftests in tools/testing/selftests/ was a historical mistake that needs to be corrected. There is no value in residing in that directory. kselftest are aiming to test the kernel whereas selftests/bpf are testing kernel, libbpf, bpftool, llvm, pahole. These are the tests for bpf ecosystem.