public inbox for ltp@lists.linux.it
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [RFC PATCH v2 1/6] net/route: Remove route{4, 6}-change-if
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 15:05:47 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190523130547.GA18816@dell5510> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <25af53c5-dcfc-93b0-b9cb-4d179d485548@oracle.com>

Hi Alexey,

> Hi Petr,
> On 5/10/19 9:31 PM, Petr Vorel wrote:
> > These testsuites requires 3 NIC setup, which is not supported by network
> > namespace setup (single host configuration) and IMHO not common for two
> > host configuration either.

> I guess, the third interface can be easily created during the setup, on the
> lhost... this is what's required, right?

> For example, by adding macvlan to the test interface:

>   ip link add ltp_mv0 link $(tst_iface) type macvlan mode bridge


> Then, for the test route we can set either ltp_mv0 or $(tst_iface) interface.

Thanks for review. I'd prefer to have this support in tst_net.sh as it can be
needed for some tests in the future, so why reinvent a wheel? Probably via some
variable (e.g.: TST_NET_EXTRA_NETNS_IFACES=2 => would add 2 more interfaces).
But maybe not every single thing must be in the library...

Much more important thing is how to solve validation when route-change-dst
on IPv6 requires using rhost and whether using C brings a benefit (next
patches in this patch-set).
First I wanted to use it because speed: faster changes stress system more
efficiently, but validation might slows it down anyway.
Validation: I give up because server app using threads (each binded to it's own
IP) was too slow and with client waiting for server to be up looked to me that
validation complicates the test a lot. But maybe instead of threading running
just several single thread instances would be faster.

Kind regards,
Petr

  reply	other threads:[~2019-05-23 13:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-05-10 18:31 [LTP] [RFC PATCH v2 0/6] net/route: Rewrite route{4, 6}-change-{dst, gw} into C Petr Vorel
2019-05-10 18:31 ` [LTP] [RFC PATCH v2 1/6] net/route: Remove route{4,6}-change-if Petr Vorel
2019-05-23 12:46   ` [LTP] [RFC PATCH v2 1/6] net/route: Remove route{4, 6}-change-if Alexey Kodanev
2019-05-23 13:05     ` Petr Vorel [this message]
2019-05-10 18:31 ` [LTP] [RFC PATCH v2 2/6] net: Introduce TST_GET_UNUSED_PORT() macro into C API Petr Vorel
2019-05-10 18:31 ` [LTP] [RFC PATCH v2 3/6] tst_net.sh: Add -a IP and -s options to tst_init_iface() Petr Vorel
2019-05-10 18:31 ` [LTP] [RFC PATCH v2 4/6] tst_net.sh: Minor code and doc cleanup Petr Vorel
2019-05-10 18:31 ` [LTP] [RFC PATCH v2 5/6] net: Move setup_addrinfo() from netstress.c into tst_net.h Petr Vorel
2019-05-10 18:31 ` [LTP] [RFC PATCH v2 6/6] net/route: Rewrite route{4, 6}-change-{dst, gw} into C Petr Vorel
2019-06-14 11:59   ` Alexey Kodanev
2019-05-28 12:32 ` [LTP] [RFC PATCH v2 0/6] " Alexey Kodanev
2019-06-03  7:26   ` Petr Vorel
2019-06-14 11:43     ` Alexey Kodanev
2019-06-14 12:47       ` Petr Vorel

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=20190523130547.GA18816@dell5510 \
    --to=pvorel@suse.cz \
    --cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
    /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