netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/1] tc-testing: Restore original behaviour for namespaces in tdc

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

Message-ID: <CAMDBHYLYpbARw1P3YadLMbm8R3CDaT83R2J0n6P22OwYFxi-Pg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Jun 2019 20:45:42 -0400
From:   Lucas Bates <lucasb@...atatu.com>
To:     Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>, kernel@...atatu.com,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleitner@...hat.com>,
        Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>,
        Davide Caratti <dcaratti@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/1] tc-testing: Restore original behaviour
 for namespaces in tdc

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 4:52 AM Nicolas Dichtel
<nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com> wrote:
> >> From my point of view, if all tests are not successful by default, it scares
> >> users and prevent them to use those tests suite to validate their patches.
> >
> > For me, explicitly telling the user that a test was skipped, and /why/
> > it was skipped, is far better than excluding the test from the
> > results: I don't want to waste someone's time with troubleshooting the
> > script if they're expecting to see results for those tests when
> > running tdc and nothing appears, or worse yet, stop using it because
> > they think it doesn't work properly.
> >
> > I do believe the skip message should be improved so it better
> > indicates why those tests are being skipped.  And the '-d' feature
> > should be documented.  How do these changes sound?
> If the error message is clear enough, I agree with you. The skip message should
> not feel like an error message ;-)

Very true. I think I just put that one in quickly and meant to come
back to it later, but either way it's a bit too vague.

I'll get that corrected, but I believe I'll add it to a separate patch
after the requires functionality goes in.  I want to update some of
the documentation as well.

Thanks,
Lucas