netdev - Re: [PATCH net 2/3] selftests: bonding: re-format bond option tests

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]

Date:   Fri, 31 Mar 2023 10:31:41 +0800
From:   Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
To:     Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@...hat.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Liang Li <liali@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/3] selftests: bonding: re-format bond option tests

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 12:45:11PM -0400, Jonathan Toppins wrote:
> On 3/29/23 06:18, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> > To improve the testing process for bond options, A new bond library is
> > added to our testing setup. The current option_prio.sh file will be
> > renamed to bond_options.sh so that all bonding options can be tested here.
> > Specifically, for priority testing, we will run all tests using module
>                                            I think you mean `modes`^^^

Ah, yes.

> > 1, 5, and 6. These changes will help us streamline the testing process
> > and ensure that our bond options are rigorously evaluated.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
> > ---
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/bonding/bond_lib.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/bonding/bond_lib.sh
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..ca64a82e1385
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/bonding/bond_lib.sh
> 
> I like this idea, we might want to separate network topology from library
> code however. That way a given test case can just include a predefined

Would you like to help explain more clear? Separate network topology to where?

> topology. A quick review of the test cases show a 2 node setup is the most
> common across all test cases.

Liang suggested that with 2 clients we can test xmit_hash_policy. In
client_create() I only create 1 client for current testing. We can add more
clients in future.

Thanks
Hangbin