On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 06:14 PM +02, Michal Luczaj wrote: > On 8/6/24 19:45, Jakub Sitnicki wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 07:18 PM +02, Michal Luczaj wrote: >>> Great, thanks for the review. With this completed, I guess we can unwind >>> the (mail) stack to [1]. Is that ingress-to-local et al. something you >>> wanted to take care of yourself or can I give it a try? >>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/87msmqn9ws.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >> >> I haven't stated any work on. You're welcome to tackle that. >> >> All I have is a toy test that I've used to generate the redirect matrix. >> Perhaps it can serve as inspiration: >> >> https://github.com/jsitnicki/sockmap-redir-matrix > > All right, please let me know if this is more or less what you meant and > I'll post the whole series for a review (+patch to purge sockmap_listen of > redir tests, fix misnomers). [...] Gave it a look as promised. It makes sense to me as well to put these tests in a new module. There will be some overlap with sockmap_listen, which has diverged from its inital scope, but we can dedup that later. One thought that I had is that it could make sense to test the not supported redirect combos (and expect an error). Sometimes folks make changes and enable some parts of the API by accient. Just a suggestion. This will be a nice improvement to the test coverage even without the negative tests. > Note that the patches are based on [2], which has not reached bpf-next > (patchwork says: "Needs ACK"). I think it might be fair to resend the series to attract the maintainers attention at this point. Thanks, Jakub
