[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zh5GLQZxfW7d4WBF@nanopsycho>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 11:34:37 +0200
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Benjamin Poirier <benjamin.poirier@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, parav@...dia.com,
mst@...hat.com, jasowang@...hat.com, xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com,
shuah@...nel.org, petrm@...dia.com, liuhangbin@...il.com,
vladimir.oltean@....com, idosch@...dia.com,
virtualization@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v2 5/6] selftests: forwarding: add
wait_for_dev() helper
Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 11:39:42PM CEST, benjamin.poirier@...il.com wrote:
>On 2024-04-15 18:25 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>
>>
>> The existing setup_wait*() helper family check the status of the
>> interface to be up. Introduce wait_for_dev() to wait for the netdevice
>> to appear, for example after test script does manual device bind.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>
>> ---
>> v1->v2:
>> - reworked wait_for_dev() helper to use slowwait() helper
>> ---
>> tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/lib.sh | 13 +++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/lib.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/lib.sh
>> index 254698c6ba56..e85b361dc85d 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/lib.sh
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/lib.sh
>> @@ -746,6 +746,19 @@ setup_wait()
>> sleep $WAIT_TIME
>> }
>>
>> +wait_for_dev()
>> +{
>> + local dev=$1; shift
>> + local timeout=${1:-$WAIT_TIMEOUT}; shift
>> +
>> + slowwait $timeout ip link show dev $dev up &> /dev/null
>
>Sorry, I just noticed that this includes the "up" flag. I was confused
>for a while until I realized that `ip` returns success even if the
>interface is not up:
>
># ip link set dev eth1 down
># ip link show dev eth1 up
># echo $?
>0
>
>So wait_for_dev() really does just wait for the device to appear, not
>for it to be up. If you agree, please remove the 'up' keyword to avoid
>confusion.
That is the intension :) I don't care about it being up, I just need to
have it in the system.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists