On 11/26/24 7:32 AM, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
On 11/25/24 2:52 AM, Zhu Yanjun wrote:
# ./test_progs -t smc
#27/1 bpf_smc/load:OK
#27 bpf_smc:OK
Summary: 1/1 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
The above command is based on several kernel modules. After these dependent kernel modules are
loaded, then can run the above command successfully.
This is indeed a problem, a better way may be to create a separate testing directory for SMC, and
we are trying to do this.
Got it. In the latest patch series, if a test program in sample/bpf can verify this bpf feature,
it is better than a selftest program in the directory tools/ testing/selftests/bpf.
I delved into this selftest tool. It seems that this selftest tool only makes the basic checks. A
test program in sample/bpf can do more.
sample(s)/bpf? No new test should be added to samples/bpf which is obsolete. The bpf CI only runs
tests under selftests/bpf.
There is selftests/bpf/config to tell the bpf CI about what kconfig needs to turn on.
Is it acceptable to add a new kconfig to selftests/bpf/config? I don't know that...
To solve the compilation problem of this test, we originally planned to add a separate testing
directory to SMC. If adding a new kconfig is acceptable, it will make this patch simpler.
Best wishes,
D. Wythe
