On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 08:10:57PM +0300, Yauheni Kaliuta wrote: > Hi, Alexei, > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 7:14 PM Alexei Starovoitov > <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:56:31PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 10:05:57AM +0200, Jiri Benc wrote: > > > > On Wed, 27 May 2020 15:23:13 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > > > I prefer to keep selftests/bpf install broken. > > > > > This forced marriage between kselftests and selftests/bpf > > > > > never worked well. I think it's a time to free them up from each other. > > > > > > > > Alexei, it would be great if you could cooperate with other people > > > > instead of pushing your own way. The selftests infrastructure was put > > > > to the kernel to have one place for testing. Inventing yet another way > > > > to add tests does not help anyone. You don't own the kernel. We're > > > > community, we should cooperate. > > > > > > I agree, we rely on the infrastructure of the kselftests framework so > > > that testing systems do not have to create "custom" frameworks to handle > > > all of the individual variants that could easily crop up here. > > > > > > Let's keep it easy for people to run and use these tests, to not do so > > > is to ensure that they are not used, which is the exact opposite goal of > > > creating tests. > > > > Greg, > > > > It is easy for people (bpf developers) to run and use the tests. > > Every developer runs them before submitting patches. > > New tests is a hard requirement for any new features. > > Maintainers run them for every push. > > > > What I was and will push back hard is when other people (not bpf developers) > > come back with an excuse that some CI system has a hard time running these > > tests. It's the problem of weak CI. That CI needs to be fixed. Not the tests. > > The example of this is that we already have github/libbpf CI that runs > > selftests/bpf just fine. Anyone who wants to do another CI are welcome to copy > > paste what already works instead of burdening people (bpf developers) who run > > and use existing tests. I frankly have no sympathy to folks who put their own > > interest of their CI development in front of bpf community of developers. > > The main job of CI is to help developers and maintainers. > > Where helping means to not impose new dumb rules on developers because CI > > framework is dumb. Fix CI instead. > > > > Any good reason why bpf selftests, residing under selftests/, should > be an exception? > "Breakages" is not, breakages are fixable. As I said early the location of bpf selftests in tools/testing/selftests/ was a historical mistake that needs to be corrected. There is no value in residing in that directory. kselftest are aiming to test the kernel whereas selftests/bpf are testing kernel, libbpf, bpftool, llvm, pahole. These are the tests for bpf ecosystem.
