netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/6] vsock/test: Introduce option to run a single test

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

Message-ID: <CAGxU2F5zVTrYEkcQDBbHWysUnOR-Y4Z6+uuJ5+Zfmj+QOgD=Wg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 09:33:50 +0100
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To: Michal Luczaj <mhal@...x.co>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/6] vsock/test: Introduce option to run a
 single test

On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 4:14 PM Michal Luczaj <mhal@...x.co> wrote:
>
> On 12/16/24 15:32, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 01:00:58PM +0100, Michal Luczaj wrote:
> >> Allow for singling out a specific test ID to be executed.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Michal Luczaj <mhal@...x.co>
> >> [...]
> >> +            case 't':
> >> +                    pick_test(test_cases, ARRAY_SIZE(test_cases) - 1,
> >> +                              optarg);
> >> +                    break;
> >
> > Cool, thanks for adding it!
> > Currently, if we use multiple times `--test X`, only the last one is
> > executed.
> >
> > If we want that behaviour, we should document in the help, or just error
> > on second time.
> >
> > But it would be cool to support multiple --test, so maybe we could do
> > the following:
> > - the first time we call pick_test, set skip to true in all tests
> > - from that point on go, set skip to false for each specified test
> >
> > I mean this patch applied on top of your patch (feel free to change it,
> > it's just an example to explain better the idea) [...]
>
> Sure, make sense. One question, though: do you want to stick with the verb
> --test? Or should it be something more descriptive, e.g. --select, --pick,
> --choose?
>

I'm terrible with names :-)

--test looks nice, but also --pick is great since we have --skip.
So I'd vote for --pick, but I'm fine with --test too.

Thanks,
Stefano