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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <b9f37d6f-a52c-97bd-6cd4-1bc58c362e22@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2023 20:23:01 -0400 From: Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@...hat.com> To: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.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 4/5/23 05:57, Hangbin Liu wrote: > 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? > Hi Hangbin, I do not have a particular preference for the naming. What you have proposed seems good to me. -Jon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists