From: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: jishi@redhat.com, weiwan@google.com, dsahern@gmail.com,
kafai@fb.com, edumazet@google.com,
matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] selftests: pmtu: List/flush IPv4 cached routes, improve IPv6 test
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 12:20:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190617122013.37a22626@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190616.204552.1290065029514400171.davem@davemloft.net>
On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 20:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2019 03:38:16 +0200
>
> > This series introduce a new test, list_flush_ipv4_exception, and improves
> > the existing list_flush_ipv6_exception test by making it as demanding as
> > the IPv4 one.
>
> I suspect this will need a respin because semantics are still being discussed
Maybe not a respin, because we're discussing netlink semantics and how
many past versions of iproute2 need to work, whereas user interface and
expectations of fixed, recent kernel/iproute2 are untouched.
Anyway, sure, it doesn't make sense to merge this before the fix is
final -- I'll resend then.
This prompts some questions though (answer this quick survey and win a
patch for netdev-FAQ.rst): when (and against which tree) do tests that
are fixed by a recent patch need to be submitted? Is it a problem if
the test is merged before the fix? Would a "dependency" note help?
> and I seem to recall a mention of there being some conflict with some of
> David A's changes.
That was for e28799e52a0a ("selftests: pmtu: Introduce
list_flush_ipv6_exception test case") on top of 438a9a856ba4 ("selftests: pmtu:
Add support for routing via nexthop objects"), but you already fixed the
conflict.
That test case, by the way, will also fail until we agree on the fix.
--
Stefano
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-17 10:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-15 1:38 [PATCH net-next 0/2] selftests: pmtu: List/flush IPv4 cached routes, improve IPv6 test Stefano Brivio
2019-06-15 1:38 ` [PATCH net-next 1/2] selftests: pmtu: Introduce list_flush_ipv4_exception test case Stefano Brivio
2019-06-15 1:38 ` [PATCH net-next 2/2] selftests: pmtu: Make list_flush_ipv6_exception test more demanding Stefano Brivio
2019-06-17 3:45 ` [PATCH net-next 0/2] selftests: pmtu: List/flush IPv4 cached routes, improve IPv6 test David Miller
2019-06-17 10:20 ` Stefano Brivio [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190617122013.37a22626@redhat.com \
--to=sbrivio@redhat.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dsahern@gmail.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=jishi@redhat.com \
--cc=kafai@fb.com \
--cc=matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=weiwan@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).