On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 08:27:02AM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote: > Hi Ihor, > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 12:21:43AM +0000, Ihor Solodrai wrote: > > Hi Tejun, Andrea. > > > > I tested a couple of variants of bpf-next + sched_ext source tree, > > just sharing the results. > > Thanks for testing! > > > > > I found a working state: BPF CI pipeline ran successfully twice > > (that's 8 build + run of selftests/sched_ext/runner in total). > > Ok. > > > > > Working state requires most patches between sched_ext/master and > > sched_ext/for-6.14-fixes [1], and also the patch > > "tools/sched_ext: Receive updates from SCX repo" [2] > > > > On plain bpf-next the dsp_local_on test fails [3]. > > Without the patch [2] there is a build error [4]: missing > > SCX_ENUM_INIT definition. > > We definitely need all the patches in sched_ext/for-6.14-fixes. I think > once Tejun sends the PR and we land the for-6.14-fixes upstream we should > reach a stable state with the sched_ext selftests. I don't have any other > additional pending fix at the moment. > > > > > We probably don't want to enable selftests/sched_ext on BPF CI with > > that many "temporary" patches. I suggest to wait until all of this is > > merged upstream. > > Sounds reasonable to me. Tejun? Sure. Thanks. -- tejun
