On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 02:32:01PM -0800, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
>
> To summarize, I like your idea about doing runtime tests and I think I
> can make it work quite nicely without any config_disabled ugliness by
> looking at the prog_type of each test.
> I can send an RFC patch series out if there still a small chance you could
> take it, but if you've already set you mind, I'd just keep them
> internally. So let me know if you have a hard NACK on the runtime probing
> approach or there is still some wiggle room.
If there is no uapi/bpf.h change, it's likely fine.
Like if test_verifier tries to load 'foo() {return 0;}' prog
for the .prog_type in the test that failed to confirm that
such prog type is supported by the kernel...
that is fine, since no extra prog_loads are happening for the default case.
