Re: [PATCH nft v2 2/3] tests/shell: skip "table_onoff" test on older kernels

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 2023-10-17 at 11:04 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 10:49:07AM +0200, Thomas Haller wrote:
> > The "table_onoff" test can only pass with certain (recent) kernels.
> > Conditionally exit with status 77, if "eval-exit-code" determines
> > that
> > we don't have a suitable kernel version.
> > 
> > In this case, we can find the fixes in:
> > 
> >  v6.6      :
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=c9bd26513b3a11b3adb3c2ed8a31a01a87173ff1
> >  v6.5.6    :
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=5e5754e9e77ce400d70ff3c30fea466c8dfe9a9f
> >  v6.1.56   :
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=c4b0facd5c20ceae3d07018a3417f06302fa9cd1
> >  v5.15.135 :
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=0dcc9b4097d860d9af52db5366a8755c13468d13
> 
> I am not sure it worth this level of tracking.
> 
> Soon these patches will be in upstream stable and this extra shell
> code will be simply deadcode in little time.

I am not concerned about dead code in old tests that keep passing.
The code was useful once, now the test passes. No need to revisit them,
unless you see a real problem with them.

If it would be only little time, the tests should wait. But how much is
the right time? You are not waiting for your use-case, you are holding
back to not to break the unknown use cases of others.

IMO merging tests is good. The problem just needs a good solution.


Thomas





[Index of Archives]     [Netfitler Users]     [Berkeley Packet Filter]     [LARTC]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]

  Powered by Linux