On 11/15/24 17:11, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> On 11/14, Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation) wrote:
>> + if (!ASSERT_GE(err, 0, "do_rx"))
>> + break;
>
> You seem to be already doing similar ASSERT_GE inside the do_rx, maybe
> drop one?
True, I'll drop the inner ASSERTS to align with do_tx.
[...]
>> +static void port_range_shutdown(void)
>> +{
>> + remove_filter();
>> +}
>
> nit: Maybe use remove_filter directly as .test_teardown? These extra
> wrappers are not adding anything (imho).
Yeah, I initially added port_range_shutdown to make init and shutdown functions
"symmetrical", but in the end that's purely cosmetic. I'll use directly
remove_filter.
[...]
>> + test = (struct test_configuration *)&tests_input[i];
>
> nit: What's the purpose of the cast? Is it to de-constify? Can we
> change run_test arguments to accept const struct test_configuration
> ptr instead?
Yes, that's an omission on my side. I initially thought about making the test
runner function rewrite some fields in the test configuration, but I finally did
not need to do this. I'll drop the cast and propagate the const
Thanks again for the review ! I'll prepare the next revision with all your
comments addressed.
Alexis
--
Alexis Lothoré, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
