From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
To: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@fomichev.me>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@fb.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 8/8] selftests/bpf: switch tests to BTF-defined map definitions
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 12:30:37 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzbV-W1KsuN3AuPas_3dG7MVwZO6RsqohS2uvnEf49M67w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190615000104.GG9636@mini-arch>
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:01 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@fomichev.me> wrote:
>
> On 06/14, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:23 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@fomichev.me> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 06/10, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > > Switch test map definition to new BTF-defined format.
> > > Reiterating my concerns on non-RFC version:
> > >
> > > Pretty please, let's not convert everything at once. Let's start
> > > with stuff that explicitly depends on BTF (spinlocks?).
> >
> > How about this approach. I can split last commit into two. One
> > converting all the stuff that needs BTF (spinlocks, etc). Another part
> > - everything else. If it's so important for your use case, you'll be
> > able to just back out my last commit. Or we just don't land last
> > commit.
> I can always rollback or do not backport internally; the issue is that
> it would be much harder to backport any future fixes/extensions to
> those tests. So splitting in two and not landing the last one is
> preferable ;-)
So I just posted v2 and I split all the test conversions into three parts:
1. tests that already rely on BTF
2. tests w/ custom key/value types
3. all the reset
I think we should definitely apply #1. I think #2 would be nice. And
we can probably hold off on #3. I'll let Alexei or Daniel decide, but
it shouldn't be hard for them to do that.
>
> > > One good argument (aside from the one that we'd like to be able to
> > > run tests internally without BTF for a while): libbpf doesn't
> > > have any tests as far as I'm aware. If we don't have 'legacy' maps in the
> > > selftests, libbpf may bit rot.
> >
> > I left few legacy maps exactly for that reason. See progs/test_btf_*.c.
> Damn it, you've destroyed my only good argument.
Heh :)
>
> > > (Andrii, feel free to ignore, since we've already discussed that)
> > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
> > > > ---
> >
> >
> > <snip>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-17 19:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-11 4:47 [PATCH bpf-next 0/8] BTF-defined BPF map definitions Andrii Nakryiko
2019-06-11 4:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/8] libbpf: add common min/max macro to libbpf_internal.h Andrii Nakryiko
2019-06-15 20:26 ` Song Liu
2019-06-11 4:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/8] libbpf: extract BTF loading and simplify ELF parsing logic Andrii Nakryiko
2019-06-15 20:25 ` Song Liu
2019-06-15 20:28 ` Song Liu
2019-06-17 17:46 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2019-06-17 17:24 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2019-06-17 18:07 ` Song Liu
2019-06-17 18:35 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2019-06-11 4:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next 3/8] libbpf: refactor map initialization Andrii Nakryiko
2019-06-11 4:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next 4/8] libbpf: identify maps by section index in addition to offset Andrii Nakryiko
2019-06-11 4:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next 5/8] libbpf: split initialization and loading of BTF Andrii Nakryiko
2019-06-15 21:21 ` Song Liu
2019-06-11 4:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next 6/8] libbpf: allow specifying map definitions using BTF Andrii Nakryiko
2019-06-15 22:00 ` Song Liu
2019-06-17 18:33 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2019-06-11 4:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next 7/8] selftests/bpf: add test for BTF-defined maps Andrii Nakryiko
2019-06-15 22:05 ` Song Liu
2019-06-11 4:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next 8/8] selftests/bpf: switch tests to BTF-defined map definitions Andrii Nakryiko
2019-06-14 23:23 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2019-06-14 23:43 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2019-06-15 0:01 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2019-06-17 19:30 ` Andrii Nakryiko [this message]
2019-06-17 21:07 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2019-06-11 5:21 ` [PATCH bpf-next 0/8] BTF-defined BPF " Andrii Nakryiko
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=CAEf4BzbV-W1KsuN3AuPas_3dG7MVwZO6RsqohS2uvnEf49M67w@mail.gmail.com \
--to=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=andriin@fb.com \
--cc=ast@fb.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).