From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1D0534BA24; Tue, 24 Feb 2026 08:00:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771920008; cv=none; b=dCcR9vN4uERnMwHiDyf5+EaNnxEKWcXEkI/JOB7m3LS3GxeXSeZh1481yBzW0/ZnOVCcjdaOt8lMgFK/h/IfngV7gt5iSG98OiZ73rURZKP9jGVjWXarNwTPRhneZFqRgog2MiZt4MMOtW7qpy7vbIQMWNZqM5vH25OUTYJx9xE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771920008; c=relaxed/simple; bh=sgme3bQ0nUoKfcm0X8HOtYXNAj8w6y8lQPgGsjjU5/8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=qLJIXL3/gtwIyOFU0jLUUXpTH73AEKnPRdqYlimfxye9r92q++xd4zSZifJ0mDfBPzpeeB89QwJJ+0NO03jqN87sbSmgh3uJCtkun+Inm0CETYxdtqsDCVwOkxE8CESacDX3iOpjCZEMcS8upiVp0gnMD7YwF3ffQjhONaoCQjk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=mDRoFjJ7; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="mDRoFjJ7" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D3549C116D0; Tue, 24 Feb 2026 08:00:05 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1771920008; bh=sgme3bQ0nUoKfcm0X8HOtYXNAj8w6y8lQPgGsjjU5/8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=mDRoFjJ7gxjhAUyYUItdUGy6Y/Oj2uidONpOGTLCqdxVLLHCpTm3kVzrMLs/pJQUN e7ITrBIpxqaiXtHP+vHchj8MgIbNLwvUgH7TnISPHXzOReSQt6ZVUaGsVDr/Vl53cj nckKs0Or1YgsahidqkeuNW+jL1davzXQvKsgj2nBjxwfafcLfd+fknoqStj7ZVFo2G 7/9LTwH3EUuNDu06l8oU1huWT5e0AS69BVpCAlIqCg5/B3mUqFCn4NoBGN5TmAqont 8mx6r7aQBakPxmGsPoNNqI650bab5bMpkJpxg6jQiNLfIYzjxvNjo4L5RlsRbI9n0I o+bkx0LgY6Fyw== Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2026 08:00:03 +0000 From: Simon Horman To: Danielle Ratson Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, razor@blackwall.org, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, shuah@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bridge@lists.linux.dev, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, idosch@nvidia.com, petrm@nvidia.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/2] selftests: net: Add bridge VLAN range grouping tests Message-ID: References: <20260222085338.3143823-1-danieller@nvidia.com> <20260222085338.3143823-3-danieller@nvidia.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260222085338.3143823-3-danieller@nvidia.com> On Sun, Feb 22, 2026 at 10:53:38AM +0200, Danielle Ratson wrote: > Add a new test file bridge_vlan_dump.sh with four test cases that verify > VLANs with different per-VLAN options are not incorrectly grouped into > ranges in the dump output. > > The tests verify the kernel's br_vlan_opts_eq_range() function correctly > prevents VLAN range grouping when neigh_suppress, mcast_max_groups, > mcast_n_groups, or mcast_enabled options differ. > > Each test verifies that VLANs with different option values appear as > individual entries rather than ranges, and that VLANs with matching > values are properly grouped together. > > Example output: > > $ ./bridge_vlan_dump.sh > TEST: VLAN range grouping with neigh_suppress [ OK ] > TEST: VLAN range grouping with mcast_max_groups [ OK ] > TEST: VLAN range grouping with mcast_n_groups [ OK ] > TEST: VLAN range grouping with mcast_enabled [ OK ] > > Signed-off-by: Danielle Ratson > Reviewed-by: Petr Machata > --- > tools/testing/selftests/net/Makefile | 1 + > .../testing/selftests/net/bridge_vlan_dump.sh | 203 ++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 204 insertions(+) > create mode 100755 tools/testing/selftests/net/bridge_vlan_dump.sh Hi Danielle, I'm wondering if you could consider running running shellcheck over this and cleaning things up a little. I see SC2086 which I think can be trivially addressed. And SC2329, which I think would be best ignored using #shellcheck disable=SC2086 Thanks!