netdev - Re: [RFC v4 3/5] vxlan: add support for underlay in non-default VRF

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <7BEAC4D9-EEED-42A4-9BD1-669EA4611279@scaleway.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Nov 2018 01:57:19 +0100
From:   Alexis Bauvin <abauvin@...leway.com>
To:     David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, akherbouche@...leway.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v4 3/5] vxlan: add support for underlay in non-default VRF

Le 27 nov. 2018 à 01:46, David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com> a écrit :
> On 11/26/18 5:41 PM, Alexis Bauvin wrote:
>> Le 26 nov. 2018 à 18:54, David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com> a écrit :
>>> On 11/26/18 9:32 AM, Alexis Bauvin wrote:
>>>> Thanks for the review. I’ll send a v5 if you have no other comment on
>>>> this version!
>>> 
>>> A few comments on the test script; see attached which has the changes.
>>> 
>>> Mainly the cleanup does not need to be called at the end since you setup
>>> the exit trap. The cleanup calls ip to delete veth-hv-1 and veth-tap but
>>> those are moved to other namespaces.
>> 
>> This was on purpose to be sure to cleanup the interfaces in case the
>> script crashes for some reason and left interfaces outside of the
>> namespace.
> 
> ok.
> 
>>> It would be good to copy the topology ascii art into the test script as
>>> well for future users.
>> 
>> Will include this:
> 
> <cool ascii diagram>
> 
> Thanks for adding.
> 
>> 
>>> Also, add the test as a separate patch at the end and include it in
>>> tools/testing/selftests/net/Makefile
>> 
>> Regarding the discussion on patch 5, it should be better to send it first
>> after patch 3, and remove the down/up from it after current patch 5,
>> right?
> 
> Typically the test case is added at the end verifying the end goal of
> the patch set as opposed to being part of a patch (3 in your case) and
> then amended by a later patch.

Ok. Will make the test script the very last of the series. Thanks for the
pointers.