On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 07:40:43AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 2/28/24 02:15, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > 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? > > > > Tough one. I can't enable CONFIG_NET_TEST on nios2, parisc, and arm with THUMB > enabled due to crashes or hangs in gso tests. I accept that. Downside is that I > have to disable CONFIG_NET_TEST on those architectures/platforms entirely, > meaning a whole class of tests are missing for those architectures. I would > prefer to have a configuration option such as CONFIG_NET_GSO_TEST to let me > disable the problematic tests for the affected platforms so I can run all > the other network unit tests. Yes, obviously something is wrong either with > the affected tests or with the implementation of the tested functionality > on the affected systems, but that could be handled separately if a separate > configuration option existed, and new regressions in other tests on the affected > architectures could be identified as they happen. I think I got confused here, is this an issue with the tests included in this patch or is it unrelated? - Charlie > > This case is similar. I'd prefer to have a separate configuration option, > say, CONFIG_CHECKSUM_MISALIGNED_KUNIT, which I can disable to be able to > run the common checksum tests on platforms / architectures which don't > support unaligned accesses. > > However, as I said, if the community wants to take a harsh stance, I have no > problem with just disabling groups of tests entirely on platforms which have > a problem with part of it. > > Guenter >
