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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Wed, 5 Apr 2023 17:57:54 +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 Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 12:34:03PM -0400, Jonathan Toppins wrote:
> > > > 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?
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Jon, would you please help explain this part?
> 
> Thanks for the ping. It looks like several test cases build largely the same
> virtual network topology and then execute the test case. I was attempting to
> point out that it might be better to provide a standard network topology and
> then each test case utilizes this standard topology instead of each test
> case rolling its own. Also, with my comment about separating out the
> topology from library code I was accounting for the ability to support
> multiple topologies, fe:
> 
>  bond_lib.sh
>  bond_topo_gateway.sh
>  bond_topo_2.sh
> 
> Then a given test case only includes/sources `bond_topo_gateway.sh` which
> creates the virtual network.

Thank Jon, this is much clear to me now. I'm not good at naming.
For topology with 2 down link devices, 1 client, I plan to name it
bond_topo_2d1c.sh. So 3 down links devices, 2 clients will be
bond_topo_3d2c.sh. If there is no switch between server and client, it could
be bond_topo_2d1c_ns.sh.

I'm not sure if the name is weird to you. Any comments?

Thanks
Hangbin