CC testing
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 8:59 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2/27/24 23:25, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> [ ... ]
> >>
> >> This test case is supposed to be as true to the "general case" as
> >> possible, so I have aligned the data along 14 + NET_IP_ALIGN. On ARM
> >> this will be a 16-byte boundary since NET_IP_ALIGN is 2. A driver that
> >> does not follow this may not be appropriately tested by this test case,
> >> but anyone is welcome to submit additional test cases that address this
> >> additional alignment concern.
> >
> > But then this test case is becoming less and less true to the "general
> > case" with this patch, whereas your initial implementation was almost
> > perfect as it was covering most cases, a lot more than what we get with
> > that patch applied.
> >
> NP with me if that is where people want to go. I'll simply disable checksum
> tests on all architectures which don't support unaligned accesses (so far
> it looks like that is only arm with thumb instructions, and possibly nios2).
> I personally find that less desirable and would have preferred a second
> configurable set of tests for unaligned accesses, but I have no problem
> with it.
IMHO the tests should validate the expected functionality. If a test
fails, either functionality is missing or behaves wrong, or the test
is wrong.
What is the point of writing tests for a core functionality like network
checksumming that do not match the expected functionality?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
