Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Fri, 25 Feb 2022 17:23:11 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>
Cc:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@fb.com>,
        Joe Stringer <joe@cilium.io>,
        Tero Kristo <tero.kristo@linux.intel.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:HID CORE LAYER" <linux-input@vger.kernel.org>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 0/6] Introduce eBPF support for HID devices
Message-ID: <YhkCbws+csQyIDKQ@kroah.com>
References: <20220224110828.2168231-1-benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>
 <YhdsgokMMSEQ0Yc8@kroah.com>
 <CAO-hwJJcepWJaU9Ytuwe_TiuZUGTq_ivKknX8x8Ws=zBFUp0SQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <YhjbzxxgxtSxFLe/@kroah.com>
 <CAO-hwJJpJf-GHzU7-9bhMz7OydNPCucTtrm=-GeOf-Ee5-aKrw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAO-hwJJpJf-GHzU7-9bhMz7OydNPCucTtrm=-GeOf-Ee5-aKrw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

HID selftests question for now:

On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 05:00:53PM +0100, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> > > I am not entirely clear on which plan I want to have for userspace.
> > > I'd like to have libinput on board, but right now, Peter's stance is
> > > "not in my garden" (and he has good reasons for it).
> > > So my initial plan is to cook and hold the bpf programs in hid-tools,
> > > which is the repo I am using for the regression tests on HID.
> >
> > Why isn't the hid regression tests in the kernel tree also?  That would
> > allow all of the testers out there to test things much easier than
> > having to suck down another test repo (like Linaro and 0-day and
> > kernelci would be forced to do).
> 
> 2 years ago I would have argued that the ease of development of
> gitlab.fd.o was more suited to a fast moving project.
> 
> Now... The changes in the core part of the code don't change much so
> yes, merging it in the kernel might have a lot of benefits outside of
> what you said. The most immediate one is that I could require fixes to
> be provided with a test, and merge them together, without having to
> hold them until Linus releases a new version.

Yes, having a test be required for a fix is a great idea.  Many
subsystems do this already and it helps a lot.

> If nobody complains of having the regression tests in python with
> pytest and some Python 3.6+ features, that is definitely something I
> should look for.

Look at the tools/testing/selftests/ directory today.  We already have
python3 tests in there, and as long as you follow the proper TAP output
format, all should be fine.  The tc-testing python code in the kernel
trees seems to do that and no one has complained yet :)

thanks,

greg k-h