On Jan 27, Toke wrote:
> Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> >> > > +
> >> > > + ctrl_sockfd = accept(sockfd, (struct sockaddr *)&ctrl_addr, &len);
> >> > > + if (ctrl_sockfd < 0) {
> >> > > + fprintf(stderr, "Failed to accept connection on DUT socket\n");
> >> > > + close(sockfd);
> >> > > + return -errno;
> >> > > + }
> >> > > +
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> >
> >> > There is also connect_to_fd, maybe we can use that? It should take
> >> > care of the timeouts.. (requires plumbing server_fd, not sure whether
> >> > it's a problem or not)
> >>
> >> please correct me if I am wrong, but in order to have server_fd it is mandatory
> >> both tester and DUT are running on the same process, right? Here, I guess 99% of
> >> the times DUT and tester will run on two separated devices. Agree?
> >
> > Yes, it's targeting more the case where you have a server fd and a
> > bunch of clients in the same process. But I think it's still usable in
> > your case, you're not using fork() anywhere afaict, so even if these
> > are separate devices, connect_to_fd should still work. (unless I'm
> > missing something, haven't looked too closely)
>
> Just to add a bit of context here, "separate devices" can refer to the
> hosts as well as the netdevs. I.e., it should also be possible to run
> this in a mode where the client bit runs on a different physical machine
> than the server bit (as it will not be feasible in any case to connect
> things with loopback cables).
yes, this is what I meant with 'DUT and tester will run on two separated
devices' (sorry to have not been so clear). Looking at the code server_fd
is always obtained from start_server(), while here the client on the tester
just knows the IPv4/IPv6 address and the port of the server running on the DUT.
Regards,
Lorenzo
>
> -Toke
>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
