On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 2:48 PM Quentin Monnet <quentin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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:) You got it. > > > 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? Just normal, nicely prepared and described PRs against respective repos.
