[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzbhmxAXUOoCr7wX-dqkzvQm0OMDLi+A+k6pFs=BCsDY=w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 12:06:15 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/7] tools: bpftool: update, synchronise and
On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 9:29 AM Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com> wrote:
>
> To work with the different program types, map types, attach types etc.
> supported by eBPF, bpftool needs occasional updates to learn about the new
> features supported by the kernel. When such types translate into new
> keyword for the command line, updates are expected in several locations:
> typically, the help message displayed from bpftool itself, the manual page,
> and the bash completion file should be updated. The options used by the
> different commands for bpftool should also remain synchronised at those
> locations.
>
> Several omissions have occurred in the past, and a number of types are
> still missing today. This set is an attempt to improve the situation. It
> brings up-to-date the lists of types or options in bpftool, and also adds a
> Python script to the BPF selftests to automatically check that most of
> these lists remain synchronised.
>
> Quentin Monnet (7):
> tools: bpftool: slightly ease bash completion updates
> selftests/bpf: check consistency between bpftool source, doc,
> completion
> tools: bpftool: complete and synchronise attach or map types
> tools: bpftool: update and synchronise option list in doc and help msg
> selftests/bpf: update bpftool's consistency script for checking
> options
> tools: bpftool: document and add bash completion for -L, -B options
> tools: bpftool: complete metrics list in "bpftool prog profile" doc
>
> .../bpf/bpftool/Documentation/bpftool-btf.rst | 48 +-
> .../bpftool/Documentation/bpftool-cgroup.rst | 3 +-
> .../bpftool/Documentation/bpftool-feature.rst | 2 +-
> .../bpf/bpftool/Documentation/bpftool-gen.rst | 9 +-
> .../bpftool/Documentation/bpftool-iter.rst | 2 +
> .../bpftool/Documentation/bpftool-link.rst | 3 +-
> .../bpf/bpftool/Documentation/bpftool-map.rst | 3 +-
> .../bpf/bpftool/Documentation/bpftool-net.rst | 2 +-
> .../bpftool/Documentation/bpftool-perf.rst | 2 +-
> .../bpftool/Documentation/bpftool-prog.rst | 36 +-
> .../Documentation/bpftool-struct_ops.rst | 2 +-
> tools/bpf/bpftool/Documentation/bpftool.rst | 12 +-
> tools/bpf/bpftool/bash-completion/bpftool | 69 ++-
> tools/bpf/bpftool/btf.c | 3 +-
> tools/bpf/bpftool/cgroup.c | 3 +-
> tools/bpf/bpftool/common.c | 76 +--
> tools/bpf/bpftool/feature.c | 1 +
> tools/bpf/bpftool/gen.c | 3 +-
> tools/bpf/bpftool/iter.c | 2 +
> tools/bpf/bpftool/link.c | 3 +-
> tools/bpf/bpftool/main.c | 3 +-
> tools/bpf/bpftool/main.h | 3 +-
> tools/bpf/bpftool/map.c | 5 +-
> tools/bpf/bpftool/net.c | 1 +
> tools/bpf/bpftool/perf.c | 5 +-
> tools/bpf/bpftool/prog.c | 8 +-
> tools/bpf/bpftool/struct_ops.c | 2 +-
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/Makefile | 1 +
> .../selftests/bpf/test_bpftool_synctypes.py | 586 ++++++++++++++++++
> 29 files changed, 802 insertions(+), 96 deletions(-)
> create mode 100755 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_bpftool_synctypes.py
>
> --
> 2.30.2
>
The patch set name ends abruptly at "synchronise and "... And what? I
need to know :)
Overall, it looks good, though I can't speak Python much, so I trust
the script works and we'll fix whatever is necessary as we go. I had
one small real nit about not re-formatting tons of existing lines for
no good reason, let's keep Git blame a bit more useful.
Also, it doesn't seem like you are actually calling a new script from
selftests/bpf/Makefile, right? That's good, because otherwise any UAPI
change in kernel header would require bpftool changes in the same
patch. But once this lands, we should probably run this in
kernel-patches CI ([0]) and, maybe, not sure, libbpf CI ([1]) as well.
So please follow up with that as well afterwards, that way you won't
be the only one nagging people about missed doc updates.
[0] https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/tree/master/travis-ci/vmtest
[1] https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf/tree/master/travis-ci/vmtest
Powered by blists - more mailing lists