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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox