On Mon, 2026-09-21 at 15:15 -0600, Nico Pache (Red Hat) wrote: > > On 9/21/26 3:04 PM, 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. > > oh thats great news. I checked on Friday and didnt see it. Thanks for the > update :) > > > 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. > > Main users of this makefile are BPF developers and BPF CI. > > Yeah we are trying to reincorporate BPF as part of our CI. It has bit rotted > in > the Fedora env, and our large amount of build variant is where things are > starting to go wrong. We need to build selftests for multiple variants, and be > able to specify which variant we are building for. Hence the out-of-tree build > with specific vmlinux.
Why can't you build the kernel and the selftests in the same out of tree location? The change you are proposing is contained, but it's a death by thousand cuts, the selftests makefile is quite a Frankenstein's monster already. > Is there any other approach you'd suggest? I personally dont work on BPF, but > am > trying to cleanup/fix our selftests builds for Upstream/Fedora CI. How many Fedora-specific kernel patches do you carry already? > Thanks, > -- Nico > > > Support for distros customizing the makefile is a non-goal. > > The "PERMISSIVE" change done enough damage already. > > > > ...
