Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] refactor the ringtest testing for ptr_ring

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 10:05:30PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 9:45 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 09:36:26PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 02:26:32PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 08:06:50PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> > > > > On 2021/7/5 17:56, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 11:57:33AM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> > > > > >> tools/include/* have a lot of abstract layer for building
> > > > > >> kernel code from userspace, so reuse or add the abstract
> > > > > >> layer in tools/include/ to build the ptr_ring for ringtest
> > > > > >> testing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>  create mode 100644 tools/include/asm/cache.h
> > > > > >>  create mode 100644 tools/include/asm/processor.h
> > > > > >>  create mode 100644 tools/include/generated/autoconf.h
> > > > > >>  create mode 100644 tools/include/linux/align.h
> > > > > >>  create mode 100644 tools/include/linux/cache.h
> > > > > >>  create mode 100644 tools/include/linux/slab.h
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe somebody can change this to be able to include in-tree headers directly?
> > > > >
> > > > > If the above works, maybe the files in tools/include/* is not
> > > > > necessary any more, just use the in-tree headers to compile
> > > > > the user space app?
> > > > >
> > > > > Or I missed something here?
> > > >
> > > > why would it work? kernel headers outside of uapi are not
> > > > intended to be consumed by userspace.
> > >
> > > The problem here, that we are almost getting two copies of the headers, and
> > > tools are not in a good maintenance, so it's often desynchronized from the
> > > actual Linux headers. This will become more and more diverse if we keep same
> > > way of operation. So, I would rather NAK any new copies of the headers from
> > > include/ to tools/include.
> >
> > We already have the copies
> > yes they are not maintained well ... what's the plan then?
> > NAK won't help us improve the situation.
> 
> I understand and the proposal is to leave only the files which are not
> the same (can we do kinda wrappers or so in tools/include rather than
> copying everything?).

I have no idea how we'd do all this. When I did tools/virtio I already
tried to minimize copying. Want to try to do better?

> > I would say copies are kind of okay just make sure they are
> > built with kconfig. Then any breakage will be
> > detected.
> >
> > > > > > Besides above, had you tested this with `make O=...`?
> > > > >
> > > > > You are right, the generated/autoconf.h is in another directory
> > > > > with `make O=...`.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any nice idea to fix the above problem?
> 
> 
> -- 
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko