On Tue, 2026-09-22 at 15:31 -0300, Ricardo B. Marlière (SUSE) wrote: > On Mon Sep 21, 2026 at 6:04 PM -03, Eduard Zingerman wrote: > > On Mon, 2026-09-21 at 14:40 -0600, Nico Pache (Red Hat) wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > Given your series was defferred, and there is a "rewrite" coming, what > > > would > > > be the best approach to working together (between us three) to get these > > > fixes in that series too. > > > > The, "rewrite", as you call it, had landed today. > > So the series in question can be re-spun. > > Regarding your patch on top of it, it appears you can just post is > > separately. > > However, I am inclined to be confrontational towards changes like this one. > > The purpose of the selftests makefile is to run selftests as appropriate > > for current tip of the kernel tree using a very specific kernel > > configuration. > > Ideally, if a Kconfig symbol is needed and the kernel under test does not > have it, tests are skipped. But with BPF they were simply not built, > rendering the tests useless for anything other than in-tree vmlinux with > tools/selftests/bpf/config*. > > > Main users of this makefile are BPF developers and BPF CI. > > But they shouldn't be the *only* ones, IMHO. Enabling distros to build and > run the tests is also valuable to catch regressions in their kernels, don't > you think? > > > Support for distros customizing the makefile is a non-goal. > > The "PERMISSIVE" change done enough damage already. > > It's ugly, I agree, but what damage has it caused? I see that it's going to > be reverted anyway, but I would appreciate if you could elaborate.
It's the first time I see a makefile that builds stuff not fully but 90% of it and returns success. The damage is the need to maintain it going forward that already cost some time. Do you have a list of kernel configs you had issues with?
