2021-07-30 12:06 UTC-0700 ~ Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> > On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 9:29 AM Quentin Monnet <quentin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> To work with the different program types, map types, attach types etc. >> supported by eBPF, bpftool needs occasional updates to learn about the new >> features supported by the kernel. When such types translate into new >> keyword for the command line, updates are expected in several locations: >> typically, the help message displayed from bpftool itself, the manual page, >> and the bash completion file should be updated. The options used by the >> different commands for bpftool should also remain synchronised at those >> locations. >> >> Several omissions have occurred in the past, and a number of types are >> still missing today. This set is an attempt to improve the situation. It >> brings up-to-date the lists of types or options in bpftool, and also adds a >> Python script to the BPF selftests to automatically check that most of >> these lists remain synchronised. >> >> Quentin Monnet (7): >> tools: bpftool: slightly ease bash completion updates >> selftests/bpf: check consistency between bpftool source, doc, >> completion >> tools: bpftool: complete and synchronise attach or map types >> tools: bpftool: update and synchronise option list in doc and help msg >> selftests/bpf: update bpftool's consistency script for checking >> options >> tools: bpftool: document and add bash completion for -L, -B options >> tools: bpftool: complete metrics list in "bpftool prog profile" doc >> >> .../bpf/bpftool/Documentation/bpftool-btf.rst | 48 +- >> .../bpftool/Documentation/bpftool-cgroup.rst | 3 +- >> .../bpftool/Documentation/bpftool-feature.rst | 2 +- >> .../bpf/bpftool/Documentation/bpftool-gen.rst | 9 +- >> .../bpftool/Documentation/bpftool-iter.rst | 2 + >> .../bpftool/Documentation/bpftool-link.rst | 3 +- >> .../bpf/bpftool/Documentation/bpftool-map.rst | 3 +- >> .../bpf/bpftool/Documentation/bpftool-net.rst | 2 +- >> .../bpftool/Documentation/bpftool-perf.rst | 2 +- >> .../bpftool/Documentation/bpftool-prog.rst | 36 +- >> .../Documentation/bpftool-struct_ops.rst | 2 +- >> tools/bpf/bpftool/Documentation/bpftool.rst | 12 +- >> tools/bpf/bpftool/bash-completion/bpftool | 69 ++- >> tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c | 3 +- >> tools/bpf/bpftool/cgroup.c | 3 +- >> tools/bpf/bpftool/common.c | 76 +-- >> tools/bpf/bpftool/feature.c | 1 + >> tools/bpf/bpftool/gen.c | 3 +- >> tools/bpf/bpftool/iter.c | 2 + >> tools/bpf/bpftool/link.c | 3 +- >> tools/bpf/bpftool/main.c | 3 +- >> tools/bpf/bpftool/main.h | 3 +- >> tools/bpf/bpftool/map.c | 5 +- >> tools/bpf/bpftool/net.c | 1 + >> tools/bpf/bpftool/perf.c | 5 +- >> tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c | 8 +- >> tools/bpf/bpftool/struct_ops.c | 2 +- >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile | 1 + >> .../selftests/bpf/test_bpftool_synctypes.py | 586 ++++++++++++++++++ >> 29 files changed, 802 insertions(+), 96 deletions(-) >> create mode 100755 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_bpftool_synctypes.py >> >> -- >> 2.30.2 >> > > The patch set name ends abruptly at "synchronise and "... And what? I > need to know :) "... and validate types and options" is the missing part. I noticed after sending -_-. My editor wrapped the Subject: line, resulting in a truncation. I'll fix for v2 to relieve readers from the suspense :). > > Overall, it looks good, though I can't speak Python much, so I trust > the script works and we'll fix whatever is necessary as we go. I had > one small real nit about not re-formatting tons of existing lines for > no good reason, let's keep Git blame a bit more useful. > > Also, it doesn't seem like you are actually calling a new script from > selftests/bpf/Makefile, right? That's good, because otherwise any UAPI > change in kernel header would require bpftool changes in the same > patch. Hmm. Ha. Certainly I wouldn't do such a thing. Please don't look again at patch 2, and let's focus on v2. 0:) > But once this lands, we should probably run this in > kernel-patches CI ([0]) and, maybe, not sure, libbpf CI ([1]) as well. > So please follow up with that as well afterwards, that way you won't > be the only one nagging people about missed doc updates. > > [0] https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/tree/master/travis-ci/vmtest > [1] https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf/tree/master/travis-ci/vmtest > What's the process to add them to the CI (did I miss some doc)? Should I just go for a GitHub PR once the script is merged in bpf-next, or do you have a tool to mirror the relevant scripts? Do we need to have the Python script in the kernel repo if we don't run it as part of the selftest suite, by the way?
