On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 11:19:48PM +0000, Daniel Müller wrote: Hi Daniel, > This change adds a brief summary of the BPF continuous integration (CI) > to the BPF selftest documentation. The summary focuses not so much on > actual workings of the CI, as it is maintained outside of the > repository, but aims to document the few bits of it that are sourced > from this repisitory and that developers may want to adjust as part of s/repisitory/repository > patch submissions: the BPF kernel configuration and the deny list > file(s). > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Müller <deso@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/README.rst | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/README.rst b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/README.rst > index d3c6b3d..d1d7e9 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/README.rst > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/README.rst > @@ -6,13 +6,53 @@ General instructions on running selftests can be found in > > __ /Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst#q-how-to-run-bpf-selftests > > +============= > +BPF CI System > +============= > + > +BPF employs a continuous integration (CI) system to check patch submission in an > +automated fashion. The system runs selftests for each patch in a series. Results > +are propagated to patchwork, where failures are highlighted similar to > +violations of other checks (such as additional warnings being emitted or a > +``scripts/checkpatch.pl`` reported deficiency): > + > + https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?delegate=121173 > + > +The CI system executes tests on multiple architectures. It uses a kernel > +configuration derived from both the generic and architecture specific config > +file fragments below ``tools/testing/selftests/bpf/`` (e.g., ``config`` and > +``config.x86_64``). > + > +Denylisting Tests > +================= > + > +It is possible for some architectures to not have support for all BPF features. > +In such a case tests in CI may fail. An example of such a shortcoming is BPF > +trampoline support on IBM's s390 architecture. For cases like this, an in-tree tiny nit: Elsewhere in the README we're saying s390x. Should we just say the same here for consistency? Looks good otherwise, thanks. Acked-by: David Vernet <void@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
