From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
To: Xu Du <xudu@redhat.com>,
davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org,
pabeni@redhat.com, horms@kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 0/8] selftest: Extend tun/virtio coverage for GSO over UDP tunnel
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2026 17:14:05 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <willemdebruijn.kernel.3ae0df5f36144@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cover.1767597114.git.xudu@redhat.com>
Xu Du wrote:
> The primary goal is to add test validation for GSO when operating over
> UDP tunnels, a scenario which is not currently covered.
>
> The design strategy is to extend the existing tun/tap testing infrastructure
> to support this new use-case, rather than introducing a new or parallel framework.
> This allows for better integration and re-use of existing test logic.
>
> ---
> v3 -> v4:
> - Rebase onto the latest net-next tree to resolve merge conflicts.
>
> v3: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/cover.1767580224.git.xudu@redhat.com/
> - Re-send the patch series becasue Patchwork don't update them.
>
> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/cover.1767074545.git.xudu@redhat.com/
> - Addresse sporadic failures due to too early send.
> - Refactor environment address assign helper function.
> - Fix incorrect argument passing in build packet functions.
>
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/cover.1763345426.git.xudu@redhat.com/
>
> Xu Du (8):
> selftest: tun: Format tun.c existing code
We generally don't do such refactoring changes. But in this case for a
test and when the changes are minimal, it's ok. Thanks for pulling
then into a separate commit.
> selftest: tun: Introduce tuntap_helpers.h header for TUN/TAP testing
> selftest: tun: Refactor tun_delete to use tuntap_helpers
> selftest: tap: Refactor tap test to use tuntap_helpers
> selftest: tun: Add helpers for GSO over UDP tunnel
> selftest: tun: Add test for sending gso packet into tun
> selftest: tun: Add test for receiving gso packet from tun
> selftest: tun: Add test data for success and failure paths
>
> tools/testing/selftests/net/tap.c | 281 +-----
> tools/testing/selftests/net/tun.c | 919 ++++++++++++++++++-
> tools/testing/selftests/net/tuntap_helpers.h | 602 ++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 1526 insertions(+), 276 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/net/tuntap_helpers.h
That's a lot of code, also to maintain long term.
Is there an alternative that has less code churn? For instance, can
the new netlink code be replaced by YNL, whether in C or called from
a script?
For instance patch 5 which sets up an env, is probably more concisely
written as a script. That may or may not work with the existing KUnit
framework.
Iff not, it would be better if the code moved out of existing files
into tuntap_helpers.h is moved in a separate NOOP move patch. Such as
netlink (e.g., rtattr_add) and the build_.. functions.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-01-06 22:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-06 1:35 [PATCH net-next v4 0/8] selftest: Extend tun/virtio coverage for GSO over UDP tunnel Xu Du
2026-01-06 1:35 ` [PATCH net-next v4 1/8] selftest: tun: Format tun.c existing code Xu Du
2026-01-06 1:35 ` [PATCH net-next v4 2/8] selftest: tun: Introduce tuntap_helpers.h header for TUN/TAP testing Xu Du
2026-01-06 1:35 ` [PATCH net-next v4 3/8] selftest: tun: Refactor tun_delete to use tuntap_helpers Xu Du
2026-01-06 1:35 ` [PATCH net-next v4 4/8] selftest: tap: Refactor tap test " Xu Du
2026-01-06 1:35 ` [PATCH net-next v4 5/8] selftest: tun: Add helpers for GSO over UDP tunnel Xu Du
2026-01-06 1:35 ` [PATCH net-next v4 6/8] selftest: tun: Add test for sending gso packet into tun Xu Du
2026-01-06 1:35 ` [PATCH net-next v4 7/8] selftest: tun: Add test for receiving gso packet from tun Xu Du
2026-01-06 1:35 ` [PATCH net-next v4 8/8] selftest: tun: Add test data for success and failure paths Xu Du
2026-01-06 1:57 ` [PATCH net-next v4 0/8] selftest: Extend tun/virtio coverage for GSO over UDP tunnel Jakub Kicinski
2026-01-06 2:17 ` Xu Du
2026-01-06 22:14 ` Willem de Bruijn [this message]
2026-01-06 22:58 ` Jakub Kicinski
2026-01-07 10:08 ` Xu Du
2026-01-07 14:59 ` Willem de Bruijn
2026-01-08 2:09 ` Xu Du
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=willemdebruijn.kernel.3ae0df5f36144@gmail.com \
--to=willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=xudu@redhat.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.