From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Borkmann Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:08:59 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20180918101107.74d8689a@canb.auug.org.au> <93982e9d-dc78-6423-bb9b-c5773d98e244@iogearbox.net> <236589cd-b55d-1ceb-f236-36f9135f794e@iogearbox.net> <5959dad0-dd02-1c3d-2487-13a69f8c507b@iogearbox.net> <20180918214814.4eae366d@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , Networking , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "davejwatson@fb.com" , "doronrk@fb.com" To: Stephen Rothwell , Vakul Garg Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180918214814.4eae366d@canb.auug.org.au> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 09/18/2018 01:48 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 10:17:03 +0000 Vakul Garg wrote: >> >> Got it. >> Thanks for the guidance. > > So, what should I remove? ;-) My (very own personal) preference in general would be that we test / assert the kernel behavior that exists /today/, meaning once we implement support for multi-record peek we add the corresponding test case along with that code. Fwiw, this practice would be consistent with the rest of the kernel selftests development model we have under net (& bpf). Thanks, Daniel