[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <75bdc3f1-3de8-4b18-a1db-512fdb34a8af@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2025 16:10:22 +0100
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Yuyang Huang <yuyanghuang@...gle.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, jiri@...nulli.us, stephen@...workplumber.org,
jimictw@...gle.com, prohr@...gle.com, liuhangbin@...il.com,
nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com, andrew@...n.ch, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>,
Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next, v4] netlink: support dumping IPv4 multicast
addresses
On 1/9/25 4:01 PM, Yuyang Huang wrote:
>> Also, this will need a paired self-test - even something very simple
>> just exercising the new code.
>
> After looking into the existing selftest, I feel writing C program
> selftests might be a little bit anti-pattern. The existing test cases
> primarily use iproute2. This approach appears to be more common and
> easier to implement. I do plan to migrate `ip maddress` to use netlink
> instead of parsing procfs, which enables me to write selftests using
> iproute2.
>
> I intend to add similar selftests for my other patches
> (anycast/multicast notifications), which already have corresponding
> iproute2 patches under review or merged.
>
> For this patch, my proposed steps for adding test are:
>
> 1. Fix this patch and get it merged.
> 2. Update iproute2(`ip maddress`) to use netlink.
> 3. Write selftests using iproute2.
>
> Please let me know if you have any concerns.
Fine by me. FTR we used the C program way for mptcp - before ynl advent
- and it was quite a pain.
Cheers,
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists