Re: [PATCH net 2/3] selftests: bonding: re-format bond option tests

[Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@redhat.com>]

On 4/5/23 05:57, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 12:34:03PM -0400, Jonathan Toppins wrote:
>>>>> I like this idea, we might want to separate network topology from library
>>>>> code however. That way a given test case can just include a predefined
>>>>
>>>> Would you like to help explain more clear? Separate network topology to where?
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Jon, would you please help explain this part?
>>
>> Thanks for the ping. It looks like several test cases build largely the same
>> virtual network topology and then execute the test case. I was attempting to
>> point out that it might be better to provide a standard network topology and
>> then each test case utilizes this standard topology instead of each test
>> case rolling its own. Also, with my comment about separating out the
>> topology from library code I was accounting for the ability to support
>> multiple topologies, fe:
>>
>>   bond_lib.sh
>>   bond_topo_gateway.sh
>>   bond_topo_2.sh
>>
>> Then a given test case only includes/sources `bond_topo_gateway.sh` which
>> creates the virtual network.
> 
> Thank Jon, this is much clear to me now. I'm not good at naming.
> For topology with 2 down link devices, 1 client, I plan to name it
> bond_topo_2d1c.sh. So 3 down links devices, 2 clients will be
> bond_topo_3d2c.sh. If there is no switch between server and client, it could
> be bond_topo_2d1c_ns.sh.
> 
> I'm not sure if the name is weird to you. Any comments?
> 

Hi Hangbin, I do not have a particular preference for the naming. What 
you have proposed seems good to me.

-Jon