| Message ID | 20200522041310.233185-1-yauheni.kaliuta@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | selftests/bpf: installation and out of tree build fixes | expand |
Actually, a bit more needed :) >>>>> On Fri, 22 May 2020 07:13:02 +0300, Yauheni Kaliuta wrote: > I had a look, here are some fixes. > Yauheni Kaliuta (8): > selftests/bpf: remove test_align from Makefile > selftests/bpf: build bench.o for any $(OUTPUT) > selftests/bpf: install btf .c files > selftests/bpf: fix object files installation > selftests/bpf: add output dir to include list > selftests/bpf: fix urandom_read installation > selftests/bpf: fix test.h placing for out of tree build > selftests/bpf: factor out MKDIR rule > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile | 77 ++++++++++++++++++++-------- > 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) > -- > 2.26.2
On 5/22/20 8:40 AM, Yauheni Kaliuta wrote: > > Actually, a bit more needed :) Not quite sure how to parse this, I presume you are intending to send a v2 of this series with [0] folded in? Please also do not add line-breaks in the middle of all your Fixes tags as otherwise it would break searching for commits in the git log. For the v2 respin, please also add a better cover letter than just saying nothing more than 'I had a look, here are some fixes.'. At least a minimal high level summary of the selftest Makefile changes in this series. Thanks, Daniel [0] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/20200522081901.238516-1-yauheni.kaliuta@redhat.com/ >>>>>> On Fri, 22 May 2020 07:13:02 +0300, Yauheni Kaliuta wrote: > > > I had a look, here are some fixes. > > Yauheni Kaliuta (8): > > selftests/bpf: remove test_align from Makefile > > selftests/bpf: build bench.o for any $(OUTPUT) > > selftests/bpf: install btf .c files > > selftests/bpf: fix object files installation > > selftests/bpf: add output dir to include list > > selftests/bpf: fix urandom_read installation > > selftests/bpf: fix test.h placing for out of tree build > > selftests/bpf: factor out MKDIR rule > > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile | 77 ++++++++++++++++++++-------- > > 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) > > > -- > > 2.26.2 > >
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:41 PM Yauheni Kaliuta <yauheni.kaliuta@redhat.com> wrote: > > > Actually, a bit more needed :) From the other kselftest thread, it seems like selftests are not supporting builds out-of-tree. With that, wouldn't it be simpler to build in tree and then just copy selftests/bpf directory to wherever you need to run tests from? It would be simple and reliable. Given I and probably everyone else never build and run tests out-of-tree, it's just too easy to break this and you'll be constantly chasing some non-obvious breakages... Is there some problem with such approach? > > >>>>> On Fri, 22 May 2020 07:13:02 +0300, Yauheni Kaliuta wrote: > > > I had a look, here are some fixes. > > Yauheni Kaliuta (8): > > selftests/bpf: remove test_align from Makefile > > selftests/bpf: build bench.o for any $(OUTPUT) > > selftests/bpf: install btf .c files > > selftests/bpf: fix object files installation > > selftests/bpf: add output dir to include list > > selftests/bpf: fix urandom_read installation > > selftests/bpf: fix test.h placing for out of tree build > > selftests/bpf: factor out MKDIR rule > > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile | 77 ++++++++++++++++++++-------- > > 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) > > > -- > > 2.26.2 > > > -- > WBR, > Yauheni Kaliuta >
Hi, Daniel! >>>>> On Tue, 26 May 2020 23:48:01 +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 5/22/20 8:40 AM, Yauheni Kaliuta wrote: >> >> Actually, a bit more needed :) > Not quite sure how to parse this, I presume you are intending > to send a v2 of this series with [0] folded in? Please also do > not add line-breaks in the middle of all your Fixes tags as > otherwise it would break searching for commits in the git > log. For the v2 respin, please also add a better cover letter > than just saying nothing more than 'I had a look, here are > some fixes.'. At least a minimal high level summary of the > selftest Makefile changes in this series. Thanks! That was part of thread with Andrii, but I should have sent separated. Anyway (see Andrii's comments) it's not coming as is, so I'll do v2. Sorry for that. > Thanks, > Daniel > [0] > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/20200522081901.238516-1-yauheni.kaliuta@redhat.com/ >>>>>>> On Fri, 22 May 2020 07:13:02 +0300, Yauheni Kaliuta wrote: >> >> > I had a look, here are some fixes. >> > Yauheni Kaliuta (8): >> > selftests/bpf: remove test_align from Makefile >> > selftests/bpf: build bench.o for any $(OUTPUT) >> > selftests/bpf: install btf .c files >> > selftests/bpf: fix object files installation >> > selftests/bpf: add output dir to include list >> > selftests/bpf: fix urandom_read installation >> > selftests/bpf: fix test.h placing for out of tree build >> > selftests/bpf: factor out MKDIR rule >> >> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile | 77 ++++++++++++++++++++-------- >> > 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) >> >> > -- >> > 2.26.2 >> >>
Hi, Andrii! >>>>> On Tue, 26 May 2020 15:32:10 -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:41 PM Yauheni Kaliuta > <yauheni.kaliuta@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> >> Actually, a bit more needed :) > From the other kselftest thread, it seems like selftests are not > supporting builds out-of-tree. With that, wouldn't it be simpler to > build in tree and then just copy selftests/bpf directory to wherever > you need to run tests from? It would be simple and reliable. Given I > and probably everyone else never build and run tests out-of-tree, it's > just too easy to break this and you'll be constantly chasing some > non-obvious breakages... > Is there some problem with such approach? This is `make install` ;). I personally do not need OOT build, but since it's in the code, I'd prefer either fix it or remove it, otherwise it's misleading. But I have not got reply from kselftest. >> >> >>>>> On Fri, 22 May 2020 07:13:02 +0300, Yauheni Kaliuta wrote: >> >> > I had a look, here are some fixes. >> > Yauheni Kaliuta (8): >> > selftests/bpf: remove test_align from Makefile >> > selftests/bpf: build bench.o for any $(OUTPUT) >> > selftests/bpf: install btf .c files >> > selftests/bpf: fix object files installation >> > selftests/bpf: add output dir to include list >> > selftests/bpf: fix urandom_read installation >> > selftests/bpf: fix test.h placing for out of tree build >> > selftests/bpf: factor out MKDIR rule >> >> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile | 77 ++++++++++++++++++++-------- >> > 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) >> >> > -- >> > 2.26.2 >> >> >> -- >> WBR, >> Yauheni Kaliuta >>
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 9:52 PM Yauheni Kaliuta <yauheni.kaliuta@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hi, Andrii! > > >>>>> On Tue, 26 May 2020 15:32:10 -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:41 PM Yauheni Kaliuta > > <yauheni.kaliuta@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Actually, a bit more needed :) > > > From the other kselftest thread, it seems like selftests are not > > supporting builds out-of-tree. With that, wouldn't it be simpler to > > build in tree and then just copy selftests/bpf directory to wherever > > you need to run tests from? It would be simple and reliable. Given I > > and probably everyone else never build and run tests out-of-tree, it's > > just too easy to break this and you'll be constantly chasing some > > non-obvious breakages... > > > Is there some problem with such approach? > > This is `make install` ;). So patch #2, #5, and #7 is solving just `make install` problem?.. My point is that by building in tree and then just copying everything under selftests/bpf directory to wherever you want to "install" it would just work. And won't require complicating already complicated Makefile. Any problem with such approach? > > I personally do not need OOT build, but since it's in the code, > I'd prefer either fix it or remove it, otherwise it's > misleading. But I have not got reply from kselftest. > > >> > >> >>>>> On Fri, 22 May 2020 07:13:02 +0300, Yauheni Kaliuta wrote: > >> > >> > I had a look, here are some fixes. > >> > Yauheni Kaliuta (8): > >> > selftests/bpf: remove test_align from Makefile > >> > selftests/bpf: build bench.o for any $(OUTPUT) > >> > selftests/bpf: install btf .c files > >> > selftests/bpf: fix object files installation > >> > selftests/bpf: add output dir to include list > >> > selftests/bpf: fix urandom_read installation > >> > selftests/bpf: fix test.h placing for out of tree build > >> > selftests/bpf: factor out MKDIR rule > >> > >> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile | 77 ++++++++++++++++++++-------- > >> > 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) > >> > >> > -- > >> > 2.26.2 > >> > >> > >> -- > >> WBR, > >> Yauheni Kaliuta > >> > > > -- > WBR, > Yauheni Kaliuta >
Hi, Andrii! >>>>> On Tue, 26 May 2020 22:04:35 -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 9:52 PM Yauheni Kaliuta > <yauheni.kaliuta@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, Andrii! >> >> >>>>> On Tue, 26 May 2020 15:32:10 -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: >> >> > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:41 PM Yauheni Kaliuta >> > <yauheni.kaliuta@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Actually, a bit more needed :) >> >> > From the other kselftest thread, it seems like selftests are not >> > supporting builds out-of-tree. With that, wouldn't it be simpler to >> > build in tree and then just copy selftests/bpf directory to wherever >> > you need to run tests from? It would be simple and reliable. Given I >> > and probably everyone else never build and run tests out-of-tree, it's >> > just too easy to break this and you'll be constantly chasing some >> > non-obvious breakages... >> >> > Is there some problem with such approach? >> >> This is `make install` ;). > So patch #2, #5, and #7 is solving just `make install` problem?.. No, they are fixing OOT build problems. I should have probably split the series, oot and install fixes. > My point is that by building in tree and then just copying > everything under selftests/bpf directory to wherever you want > to "install" it would just work. And won't require > complicating already complicated Makefile. Any problem with > such approach? I understand. I see only wasting of space as a problem, but should check. >> >> I personally do not need OOT build, but since it's in the code, >> I'd prefer either fix it or remove it, otherwise it's >> misleading. But I have not got reply from kselftest. >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> On Fri, 22 May 2020 07:13:02 +0300, Yauheni Kaliuta wrote: >> >> >> >> > I had a look, here are some fixes. >> >> > Yauheni Kaliuta (8): >> >> > selftests/bpf: remove test_align from Makefile >> >> > selftests/bpf: build bench.o for any $(OUTPUT) >> >> > selftests/bpf: install btf .c files >> >> > selftests/bpf: fix object files installation >> >> > selftests/bpf: add output dir to include list >> >> > selftests/bpf: fix urandom_read installation >> >> > selftests/bpf: fix test.h placing for out of tree build >> >> > selftests/bpf: factor out MKDIR rule >> >> >> >> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile | 77 ++++++++++++++++++++-------- >> >> > 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) >> >> >> >> > -- >> >> > 2.26.2 >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> WBR, >> >> Yauheni Kaliuta >> >> >> >> >> -- >> WBR, >> Yauheni Kaliuta >>
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:25 AM Yauheni Kaliuta <yauheni.kaliuta@redhat.com> wrote: [...] > > My point is that by building in tree and then just copying > > everything under selftests/bpf directory to wherever you want > > to "install" it would just work. And won't require > > complicating already complicated Makefile. Any problem with > > such approach? > > I understand. I see only wasting of space as a problem, but > should check. > Well, it messes up with the lib.mk functionality. There must be explicit was for customization, like it's done with OVERRIDE_TARGETS.