On Thu Apr 30, 2026 at 10:30 AM -03, bot+bpf-ci wrote:
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
>> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
>> index cc14b13e23fe..7ba82974ee78 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> @@ -2046,15 +2069,20 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>> struct prog_test_def *test = &prog_test_defs[i];
>>
>> test->test_num = i + 1;
>> - test->should_run = should_run(&env.test_selector,
>> - test->test_num, test->test_name);
>> + test->selected = should_run(&env.test_selector,
>> + test->test_num, test->test_name);
>> + test->should_run = test->selected;
>>
>> - if ((test->run_test == NULL && test->run_serial_test == NULL) ||
>> - (test->run_test != NULL && test->run_serial_test != NULL)) {
>> + if (test->run_test && test->run_serial_test) {
>> fprintf(stderr, "Test %d:%s must have either test_%s()
>> or serial_test_%sl() defined.\n",
>> test->test_num, test->test_name,
>> test->test_name, test->test_name);
>> exit(EXIT_ERR_SETUP_INFRA);
>> }
>> + if (!test->run_test && !test->run_serial_test) {
>> + test->not_built = true;
>> + test->should_run = false;
>> + continue;
>> + }
>> if (test->should_run)
>> test->should_tmon = should_tmon(&env.tmon_selector,
>> test->test_name);
>> }
>> @@ -2106,9 +2134,18 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>
>> for (i = 0; i < prog_test_cnt; i++) {
>> struct prog_test_def *test = &prog_test_defs[i];
>> + struct test_state *state = &test_states[i];
>>
>> - if (!test->should_run)
>> + if (!test->should_run) {
>> + if (test->not_built && test->selected &&
>> + !env.get_test_cnt && !env.list_test_names) {
>> + state->tested = true;
>> + state->skip_cnt = 1;
>> + env.not_built_cnt++;
>> + print_test_result(test, state);
>> + }
>> continue;
>> + }
>
> When test->should_run is false (which it is for unbuilt tests due to the
> code above setting test->should_run = false), the continue statement skips
> the env.get_test_cnt and env.list_test_names blocks that follow.
>
> Won't this completely omit unbuilt tests from the output of --list (-l) and
> --count modes? The code only prints unbuilt tests when !env.get_test_cnt &&
> !env.list_test_names is true.
It makes no sense to count and list tests that can't be run.
>
> If CI systems use test_progs -l to discover and distribute tests across
> parallel jobs, they won't be aware of unbuilt tests. Could this undermine
> the stated goal of keeping unbuilt tests visible in CI results?
Only if the CI in question sets BPF_STRICT_BUILD=0, which is not usually
the case and if opted-in then the user will know that some tests might not
appear and be counted.
>
> Reference: sashiko-bot raised this concern in v10 discussion at
> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
>
>>
>> if (env.get_test_cnt) {
>> env.succ_cnt++;
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
> ---
> AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
> See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md
>
> CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/25167006036
