On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 7:54 PM Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Jason Xing wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 6:42 PM Willem de Bruijn > > <willemdebruijn.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Jason Xing wrote: > > > > From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Introduce a test for SOF_TIMESTAMPING_OPT_ID_TCP for TCP proto so > > > > that we can get aware of whether using write_seq as an initial key > > > > value works as expected. > > > > > > Does the test behave different with this flag set? > > > > > > > Sorry, my mistake, the last email is not open to the mailing list. So > > I copy that here. > > > > Not that much, only at the very beginning, this new test will use > > write_seq directly. > > The kernel will act differently. But the test does not detect this. No, it will not cover this. > > > I once thought and wondered if I need to setsockopt() when one or two > > sendmsg() are already done, then we check the behaviour of subsequent > > sendmsg() calls. Then I changed my mind because it's a bit complex. Do > > you think it's a good way to test? > > Packetdrill is more suitable for deterministically testing such subtle > differences. > > I have a packetdrill test for OPT_ID with and without OPT_ID_TCP. It > is not public yet. As part of upstreaming our packetdrill tests, this > will eventually also be available. Good to hear that. Now I think I will drop this patch. Thanks, Jason
