From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Harald Welte Subject: Re: RFC: unit tests for kernel GTP module Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 19:03:16 +0100 Message-ID: <20170217180316.ujzsbnb2s2ee44iw@nataraja> References: <20170216220801.o3fajacj4sx3iere@nataraja> <1507789126.143172.1487343779235.JavaMail.zimbra@tpip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso , netdev , osmocom-net-gprs To: Andreas Schultz Return-path: Received: from ganesha.gnumonks.org ([213.95.27.120]:56208 "EHLO ganesha.gnumonks.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934053AbdBQSQR (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Feb 2017 13:16:17 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1507789126.143172.1487343779235.JavaMail.zimbra@tpip.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Andreas, On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 04:02:59PM +0100, Andreas Schultz wrote: > The test suite is proprietary, so we can only share the results but > not the test setup itself. it would be great to have some CI setup where both current stable as well as a development branch of the code is tested, and reports published regularly. Not sure how realistic that is. > We more or less removed static GTP tunnels. The tools in libgtpnl > only work when an application is keeping the GTP socket alive. Well, then those tools need to be adapted accordingly. That's what I also indicated in other mails: Changes in the kernel GTP code should always be followed-up with correspondign changes in libgtpnl and associated tools. I mean, the tool could just open the socket and then continue to run until terminated explicitly... I think there's a lot of value in some very low-level tools for testing and experimentation, without the complexity of configuring + running an Erlang GGSN/P-GW with all its dependencies. -- - Harald Welte http://laforge.gnumonks.org/ ============================================================================ "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option." (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)