[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180305.091416.1776596186715120504.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 09:14:16 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: sbrivio@...hat.com
Cc: dsahern@...il.com, weiwan@...gle.com, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
maze@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ipv6: Reflect MTU changes on PMTU of exceptions
for MTU-less routes
From: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@...hat.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 13:29:56 +0100
> And about corner cases, from Documentation/dev-tools/kselftest.rst:
>
> These are intended to be small tests to exercise individual code
> paths in the kernel. Tests are intended to be run after building, installing
> and booting a kernel.
>
> and:
>
> In general, the rules for selftests are
> [...]
> * Don't take too long;
>
> if you plan to request a self-test for every fix in the networking area,
> you need to substantially change the scope of these self-tests. This stuff
> would instead fit in a comprehensive networking test suite.
Nice try, but this logic doesn't hold.
It says don't make any "_INDIVIDUAL_" test take too long to run.
This allows handling timeouts on individual tests more sanely.
It absolutely does not say that we shouldn't have a lot of tests.
Why are you working so hard to avoid adding a nice test case for the
bug you are fixing? This makes absolultely not sense at all.
I want as many tests as possible for the networking code, so please
write the test case you are being requested to add.
Thank you.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists