On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 08:39:44AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 06:00:24 +0000 Hangbin Liu wrote: > > > Hm, my knee-jerk reaction was that we should avoid adding too much ynl > > > stuff to the kernel at this point. But looking closer it's not that > > > long. > > > > > > Do I understand correctly, tho, that you're testing _system_ YNL? > > > Not what's in tree? > > > > Kind of. With this we can test both the system's YNL and also make sure the > > YNL interface has no regression. > > Meaning we still test the spec, right?
I just do `make install` in tools/net/ynl. Both the ynl scripts and specs are installed. So I think the specs are also tested. > > To state the obvious ideally we'd test both the specs and the Python > tools. Strictly better, and without it adding tests for new Python > features will be a little annoying for people running the selftest. Yes > Maybe the solution is as simple as finding and alias'ing ynl to the > cli.py ? I didn't get here. The `ynl` calls pyynl.cli:main, that should be enough. Do you mean we should find the `cli.py` path and call it like `$source_code/tools/net/ynl/pyynl/cli.py --spec $source_code/Documentation/netlink/specs/xxx.yaml ...`? Thanks Hangbin
