From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: andrew at lunn.ch (Andrew Lunn) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 14:48:02 +0100 Subject: [PATCH net-next 01/14] selftests: forwarding: Add initial testing framework In-Reply-To: <20180226085948.19368-2-idosch@mellanox.com> References: <20180226085948.19368-1-idosch@mellanox.com> <20180226085948.19368-2-idosch@mellanox.com> Message-ID: <20180226134802.GC1195@lunn.ch> > + br0 > + + > + vrf-h1 | vrf-h2 > + + +---+----+ + > + | | | | > + 192.0.2.1/24 + + + + 192.0.2.2/24 > + swp1 swp2 swp3 swp4 > + + + + + > + | | | | > + +--------+ +--------+ > + > +setup_prepare > +setup_wait > + > +ping_test $h1 192.0.2.2 > +ping6_test $h1 2001:db8:1::2 How about putting 192.0.2.3/24 on br0, and pinging to/from it. Otherwise you don't test the slow path. I would also suggest a much simpler first test. > + > + > + vrf-h1 vrf-h2 > + + + > + | | > + 192.0.2.1/24 + + 192.0.2.2/24 192.0.3.1/24 + + 192.0.3.2/24 > + swp1 swp2 swp3 swp4 > + + + + + > + | | | | > + +--------+ +--------+ Ping from 192.0.2.1 to 192.0.2.2 and test there are 0 packets seen on swp3 and swp4. I've seen DSA drivers get this wrong before, forgetting to ensure ports are properly separated by default. Andrew -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: andrew@lunn.ch (Andrew Lunn) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 14:48:02 +0100 Subject: [PATCH net-next 01/14] selftests: forwarding: Add initial testing framework In-Reply-To: <20180226085948.19368-2-idosch@mellanox.com> References: <20180226085948.19368-1-idosch@mellanox.com> <20180226085948.19368-2-idosch@mellanox.com> Message-ID: <20180226134802.GC1195@lunn.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID: <20180226134802.PHhna5iRYl8TfQIx6Z0u2mUDQfh1bYQHx6527EwOeWU@z> > + br0 > + + > + vrf-h1 | vrf-h2 > + + +---+----+ + > + | | | | > + 192.0.2.1/24 + + + + 192.0.2.2/24 > + swp1 swp2 swp3 swp4 > + + + + + > + | | | | > + +--------+ +--------+ > + > +setup_prepare > +setup_wait > + > +ping_test $h1 192.0.2.2 > +ping6_test $h1 2001:db8:1::2 How about putting 192.0.2.3/24 on br0, and pinging to/from it. Otherwise you don't test the slow path. I would also suggest a much simpler first test. > + > + > + vrf-h1 vrf-h2 > + + + > + | | > + 192.0.2.1/24 + + 192.0.2.2/24 192.0.3.1/24 + + 192.0.3.2/24 > + swp1 swp2 swp3 swp4 > + + + + + > + | | | | > + +--------+ +--------+ Ping from 192.0.2.1 to 192.0.2.2 and test there are 0 packets seen on swp3 and swp4. I've seen DSA drivers get this wrong before, forgetting to ensure ports are properly separated by default. Andrew -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from vps0.lunn.ch ([185.16.172.187]:37198 "EHLO vps0.lunn.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752157AbeBZNsF (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Feb 2018 08:48:05 -0500 Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 14:48:02 +0100 From: Andrew Lunn To: Ido Schimmel Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, shuah@kernel.org, jiri@mellanox.com, dsahern@gmail.com, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com, nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com, mlxsw@mellanox.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 01/14] selftests: forwarding: Add initial testing framework Message-ID: <20180226134802.GC1195@lunn.ch> References: <20180226085948.19368-1-idosch@mellanox.com> <20180226085948.19368-2-idosch@mellanox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180226085948.19368-2-idosch@mellanox.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > + br0 > + + > + vrf-h1 | vrf-h2 > + + +---+----+ + > + | | | | > + 192.0.2.1/24 + + + + 192.0.2.2/24 > + swp1 swp2 swp3 swp4 > + + + + + > + | | | | > + +--------+ +--------+ > + > +setup_prepare > +setup_wait > + > +ping_test $h1 192.0.2.2 > +ping6_test $h1 2001:db8:1::2 How about putting 192.0.2.3/24 on br0, and pinging to/from it. Otherwise you don't test the slow path. I would also suggest a much simpler first test. > + > + > + vrf-h1 vrf-h2 > + + + > + | | > + 192.0.2.1/24 + + 192.0.2.2/24 192.0.3.1/24 + + 192.0.3.2/24 > + swp1 swp2 swp3 swp4 > + + + + + > + | | | | > + +--------+ +--------+ Ping from 192.0.2.1 to 192.0.2.2 and test there are 0 packets seen on swp3 and swp4. I've seen DSA drivers get this wrong before, forgetting to ensure ports are properly separated by default. Andrew