[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180928104014.mhq7kgyle53wqgao@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 12:40:17 +0200
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 10/10] selftests/bpf: cgroup local
storage-based network counters
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 11:37:26AM +0100, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /* Let's check that bytes counter value is reasonable */
> > > > > + if (netcnt.bytes < packets * 500 || netcnt.bytes > packets * 1500) {
> > > >
> > > > since packet count is accurate why byte count would vary ?
> > >
> > > Tbh I'm not sure if the size of the packet here can vary depending
> > > on the environment. Is there a nice way to get the expected size?
> >
> > ping packets should be fixed size depending on v4 vs v6.
> > If 'ping -6' is used, it will force ipv6.
> >
>
> Are we ok to screw up kselftests on v4-only machines?
we already did. Some of the selftests/bpf use ping -6 already.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists