[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAADnVQJT8UJntO=pSYGN-eokuWGP_6jEeLkFgm2rmVvxmGtUCg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 11:27:23 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, Wei Wang <weiwan@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/7] net: add struct nexthop to fib{6}_info
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 11:01 AM David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>
> From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
> Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 08:18:10 -0700
>
> > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 8:16 AM David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 5/30/19 9:06 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >> > Huge number of core changes and zero tests.
> >>
> >> As mentioned in a past response, there are a number of tests under
> >> selftests that exercise the code paths affected by this change.
> >
> > I see zero new tests added.
>
> If the existing tests give sufficient coverage, your objections are not
> reasonable Alexei.
I completely disagree. Existing tests are not sufficient.
It is a new feature for the kernel with corresponding iproute2 new features,
yet there are zero tests.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists