On Sat, Feb 15, 2025 at 10:39 AM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2/14/25 3:53 PM, Jason Xing wrote:
> > Another related topic about rto min test, do you think it's necessary
> > to add TCP_BPF_RTO_MIN into the setget_sockopt test?
>
> hmm... not sure why it is related to the existing TCP_BPF_RTO_MIN.
> I thought this patch is adding the new TCP_RTO_MAX_MS...
>
> or you want to say, while adding a TCP_RTO_MAX_MS test, add a test for the
> existing TCP_BPF_RTO_MIN also because it is missing in the setget_sockopt?
> iirc, I added setget_sockopt.c to test a patch that reuses the kernel
> do_*_{set,get}sockopt. Thus, it assumes the optname supports both set and get.
> TCP_BPF_RTO_MIN does not support get, so I suspect setget_sockopt will not be a
> good fit. They are unrelated, so I would leave it out of your patch for now.
