On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:01 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 06/14, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:23 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > > > <snip>
