[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200618093131.GW102436@dhcp-12-153.nay.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 17:31:31 +0800
From: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
To: Davide Caratti <dcaratti@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Pieter Jansen van Vuuren
<pieter.jansenvanvuuren@...ronome.com>,
Lucas Bates <lucasb@...atatu.com>,
Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, lucien.xin@...il.com,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] tc-testing: fix geneve options match in tunnel_key
unit tests
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 10:53:51AM +0200, Davide Caratti wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-06-18 at 16:37 +0800, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> > tc action print "geneve_opts" instead of "geneve_opt".
> > Fix the typo, or we will unable to match correct action output.
> >
>
> hello Hangbin,
>
> > Fixes: cba54f9cf4ec ("tc-testing: add geneve options in tunnel_key unit tests")
>
> this Fixes: tag is suspicious, when a tdc test is added I would expect to
> see it passing. If I well read the code, the problem has been introduced
> in iproute2, with commit
>
> commit f72c3ad00f3b7869e90840d0098a83cb88224892
> Author: Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
> Date: Mon Apr 27 18:27:48 2020 +0800
>
> tc: m_tunnel_key: add options support for vxlan
>
>
> that did:
>
> [...]
>
> static void tunnel_key_print_geneve_options(const char *name,
> - struct rtattr *attr)
> +static void tunnel_key_print_geneve_options(struct rtattr *attr)
> {
> struct rtattr *tb[TCA_TUNNEL_KEY_ENC_OPT_GENEVE_MAX + 1];
> struct rtattr *i = RTA_DATA(attr);
> int ii, data_len = 0, offset = 0;
> int rem = RTA_PAYLOAD(attr);
> + char *name = "geneve_opts";
> char strbuf[rem * 2 + 1];
> char data[rem * 2 + 1];
> uint8_t data_r[rem];
> @@ -421,7 +464,7 @@ static void tunnel_key_print_geneve_options(const char *name,
>
> open_json_array(PRINT_JSON, name);
> print_nl();
> - print_string(PRINT_FP, name, "\t%s ", "geneve_opt");
> + print_string(PRINT_FP, name, "\t%s ", name);
Ah, yes, you are right.
>
>
> (just speculating, because I didn't try older versions of iproute2). But if my
> hypothesis is correct, then the fix should be done in iproute2, WDYT?
If you and Stephen are both agree. I'm OK to fix it on iproute2.
Thanks
Hangbin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists