Re: [PATCH] selftests/bpf: split -extras target to -static and -gen

From: Yauheni Kaliuta <yauheni.kaliuta@redhat.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Jiri Benc <jbenc@redhat.com>, shuah <shuah@kernel.org>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>,
	bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
	<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/bpf: split -extras target to -static and -gen
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 20:10:57 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CANoWswkGoJEZVcfLiNverDWyh6skSoix=JqxeJR9K8A=H8x=rw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200528161437.x3e2ddxmj6nlhvv7@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>

Hi, Alexei,

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 7:14 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> 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.

-- 
WBR, Yauheni