| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1377508640.16071.2.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:17:20 +0100 From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com> To: Hui-Zhi Zhao <zhaohuizhi@...il.com> CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Do you guys think add link test to offline test is reasonable? On Mon, 2013-08-26 at 15:47 +0800, Hui-Zhi Zhao wrote: > Hi Guys, > > > I have a query about the ethtool offline test. > > > From the man page of "ethtool" I see the offline test should be > "offline (default) means to perform full set of tests possibly causing > normal operation interruption during the tests". In my opinion, it > should just do something like inner loopback tests, offline should be > no relative with live network connection. I agree that an offline test should not depend on having a network link. > Since it is impractical to expect these ports to be connected to a > live network during production test (due to limited network > resources, a machine maybe have lots of ports), some of the tests will > fail, even the cards have no problem. > > So, do you guys think add link test to offline test is reasonable? You can do it but it shouldn't affect the overall pass/fail result. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists