Hi Willem, On 09/09/2024 15:15, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > Matthieu Baerts wrote: >> Hi Jakub, >> >> On 07/09/2024 02:04, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >>> On Fri, 06 Sep 2024 19:28:08 -0400 Willem de Bruijn wrote: >>>>>> No, we opted for this design exactly to use existing kselftest infra, >>>>>> rather than reimplementing that in our wrapper, as I did in the RFC. >>>>> >>>>> OK, I understood from the discussions from the RFC that by using the >>>>> kselftest infra, the tests would be automatically executed in dedicated >>>>> netns, and it could also help running tests in parallel. That sounded >>>>> great to me, but that's not the case by default from what I see. >>>> >>>> Perhaps that's something to change in the defaults for run_tests. >>>> >>>> Since the infra exist, that is preferable over reimplementing it for >>>> one particular subset of tests. >>>> >>>> Or if not all kselftests can run in netns (quite likely), this needs >>>> to be opt-in. Then a variable defined in the Makefile perhaps. To >>>> tell kselftest to enable the feature for this target. >>> >>> Indeed, I was thinking along the same lines. >> >> Yes, I was also thinking about a variable defined in the Makefile. >> >> Because I suppose this variable will not be added in this cycle, and if >> a v3 is planned, would it be OK to simply prefix the 'packetdrill' >> commands with "unshare -n"? That would be similar to what is already >> done in Netfilter, and it prevents messing up with other tests/host >> settings? > > Each target is built and booted separately, right?
