On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 10:44:19 +0000 Marat Khalili <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The BPF tests have two sections. One is doing tests of the > > BPF interpreter and the other is for testing the ELF load part. > > The latter requires the null PMD to work, so only build it > > present. > > Splitting BPF tests into multiple files makes sense, and not just because of > dependencies. > > Coupling ELF tests with the presence of null PMD is strange, there might be a > lot of BPF ELF tests that do not depend on null or any PMD, and there might be > other BPF tests depending on PMD. Maybe we should call the new file > test_bpf_ethdev.c instead (following the header name rte_bpf_ethdev.h , > regardless of what one thinks of the name), or something like this. I did more experiments and a simplistic split up (via AI) did not work because the filter test is using similar test to call DPDK function. There actually is a bunch of overlap, and duplicating code is worse. But it is possible to just skip the filtering tests if null PMD is not compiled in. The filtering tests do need a device to hang their filters off of and null was used elsewhere already. Working on a revision to do that.
