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=-2.3 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, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 46D50C43331 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 16:42:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 082662082C for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 16:42:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="dBmU6TMr" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2387435AbfIFQmh (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Sep 2019 12:42:37 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-f194.google.com ([209.85.210.194]:38031 "EHLO mail-pf1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732712AbfIFQmh (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Sep 2019 12:42:37 -0400 Received: by mail-pf1-f194.google.com with SMTP id h195so4876351pfe.5; Fri, 06 Sep 2019 09:42:37 -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:user-agent; bh=8F4vyAP7xufW5sYJcgtxJXKLIYDbjk5khl9fDuHf24A=; b=dBmU6TMrljwjRO2IWF/BCZHJDgxj9cvCSZ7GRmAvS0XysSxcJRaReaBhSYoArUz8KE PlGwZO+/eNuRZ90iZalarVTROtWOrOaerTb6zkBhMKxahXz+vksiknkPK6Gngzb90Qpq vZ2PCapsL0qYQomJRVl8uw3s98BspY5D/Rv6LWIhCh3m+TqPp1NmU/iv5WqBJ8e5gCCD DJoD61bsIxCBDgaHJF921fz0k7n6sT8IxmaKI4YHU4KxZzerEdmMATsd6o5ZFaebDr7h 4L/U9GLLxqwbTzxTyW9bRxSRBGTEguLP1s2rHbOOm4Q1AdbyuWLc28TugywKuzF+6oQX BVEw== 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:user-agent; bh=8F4vyAP7xufW5sYJcgtxJXKLIYDbjk5khl9fDuHf24A=; b=J2Ict8K9raLCdStUOqMgV+bXAhK3a4BQemuEOxObU0O2dj+Dc58D44k/YSb5pwCq5x 3L278cBFlzMwv+/r+d030TtOHrdbWzhWYd28UFdyr1UtSvquq7mZVrhnBJjYaFwdMV/7 xhUoKKAB5vwCECK7i2fTa7jQFAeF+yxRysM+fFWmUziJIPavkOrqkSkS1fIoWy9sCOPQ zcXjyHMO7+4HOcFq2fmZTZGk3BhlwkiRcWSHhWc3SQDi31vXs3MfDWZodgzVtI3R7lYU 6lnkt/y2kMDmS6IVGHKsAXaZLOHJd+2MKplCXeTIuek1DAuvfSQKvLAI01ytJ70Oq2u5 JFEA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXxqVP1h1AJqS/i99yQ3Gp0C3glyJXg4I6az6tXhCqOJhnorAPH wXmCRntt4ZeW+Cw1E5udzWM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzPpvPo2Qc+q/Yy5oo0nF+VvgkhJcZPO667cTqUhNR9jQKNkIYzFbniu5TkfQbQAlNXhvxNMg== X-Received: by 2002:a62:2b16:: with SMTP id r22mr11769282pfr.254.1567788156710; Fri, 06 Sep 2019 09:42:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com ([2620:10d:c090:200::3:46a4]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g14sm6726362pfb.150.2019.09.06.09.42.35 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 06 Sep 2019 09:42:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 09:42:34 -0700 From: Alexei Starovoitov To: Stanislav Fomichev Cc: Andrii Nakryiko , Stanislav Fomichev , Networking , bpf , "David S. Miller" , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/6] selftests/bpf: move sockopt tests under test_progs Message-ID: <20190906164233.npuhtaeoezpp2dol@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> References: <20190904162509.199561-1-sdf@google.com> <20190904230331.ld4zsn4jgldu7l6q@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <20190906151808.GD2101@mini-arch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190906151808.GD2101@mini-arch> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180223 Sender: bpf-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 08:18:08AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > On 09/06, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 4:03 PM Alexei Starovoitov > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 09:25:03AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > > > > Now that test_progs is shaping into more generic test framework, > > > > let's convert sockopt tests to it. This requires adding > > > > a helper to create and join a cgroup first (test__join_cgroup). > > > > Since we already hijack stdout/stderr that shouldn't be > > > > a problem (cgroup helpers log to stderr). > > > > > > > > The rest of the patches just move sockopt tests files under prog_tests/ > > > > and do the required small adjustments. > > > > > > Looks good. Thank you for working on it. > > > Could you de-verbose setsockopt test a bit? > > > #23/32 setsockopt: deny write ctx->retval:OK > > > #23/33 setsockopt: deny read ctx->retval:OK > > > #23/34 setsockopt: deny writing to ctx->optval:OK > > > #23/35 setsockopt: deny writing to ctx->optval_end:OK > > > #23/36 setsockopt: allow IP_TOS <= 128:OK > > > #23/37 setsockopt: deny IP_TOS > 128:OK > > > 37 subtests is a bit too much spam. > > > > If we merged test_btf into test_progs, we'd have >150 subtests, which > > would be pretty verbose as well. But the benefit of subtest is that > > you can run just that sub-test and debug/verify just it, without all > > the rest stuff. > > > > So I'm wondering, if too many lines of default output is the only > > problem, should we just not output per-subtest line by default? > Ack, we can output per-subtest line if it fails so it's easy to re-run; > otherwise, hiding by default sounds good. I'll prepare a v3 sometime > today; Alexei, let us know if you disagree. If the subtests are runnable and useful individually it's good to have them as subtests. I think in the above I misread them as a sequence of sub-checks that needs to happen before actual test result. Looking at test_sockopt.c I see that they're separate tests, so yeah keep them. No need to hide by default or extra flags. Let me look at v1 and v2 again...