netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 7/7] testing: net-drv: add a driver test for stats reporting

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240403144817.2c86ff36@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 14:48:17 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>
Cc: <davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 <pabeni@...hat.com>, <shuah@...nel.org>, <sdf@...gle.com>,
 <donald.hunter@...il.com>, <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 7/7] testing: net-drv: add a driver test for
 stats reporting

On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 18:52:50 +0200 Petr Machata wrote:
> > Nothing wrong with that. I guess the question in my mind is whether
> > we're aiming for making the tests "pythonic" (in which case "with"
> > definitely wins), or more of a "bash with classes" style trying to
> > avoid any constructs people may have to google. I'm on the fence on
> > that one, as the del example proves my python expertise is not high.
> > OTOH people who prefer bash will continue to write bash tests,
> > so maybe we don't have to worry about non-experts too much. Dunno.  
> 
> What I'm saying is, bash is currently a bit of a mess when it comes to
> cleanups. It's hard to get right, annoying to review, and sometimes
> individual cases add state that they don't unwind in cleanup() but only
> later in the function, so when you C-c half-way through such case, stuff
> stays behind.
> 
> Python has tools to just magic all this away.

Understood, just to be clear what I was saying is that +/- bugs 
in my example it is possible to "attach" the lifetime of things
to a test object or such. Maybe people would be less likely to remember
to do that than use "with"? Dunno. In any case, IIUC we don't have to
decide now, so I went ahead with the v2 last night.