[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250725135856.6854f2a5@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 13:58:56 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
<edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Shuah Khan
<shuah@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] selftests: net: Skip test if IPv6 is not
configured
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 16:47:54 -0400 Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> Less opinionated: the tests implicitly depends on the config files
> in the test directory. Do we have to start making the robust against
> situations where CONFIGs in that file are missing?
I was considering adding something like this to the test guidance.
### Ensure necessary kernel config knobs are set
Each test directory has a `config` file listing which kernel
configuration options the tests depend on. This file must be kept
up to date, our CIs build minimal kernels for each test group.
Adding checks inside the tests to validate that the necessary kernel
configs are enabled is discouraged. The test author may include such
checks, but standalone patches to make tests compatible e.g. with
distro kernel configs are unlikely to be accepted.
WDYT?
Primarily trying to minimize the number of patches and adjustments
we'd see, as the matrix of systems and kernel configs can easily get
out of hand..
Powered by blists - more mailing lists