On 5/28/25 11:08, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 10:58:28AM +0200, Michal Luczaj wrote: >> Administrative query: while net-next is closed, am I supposed to mark this >> series as "RFC" and post v2 for a review as usual, or is it better to just >> hold off until net-next opens? > > Whichever you prefer, if you are uncertain about the next version and > want to speed things up with a review while waiting, then go with RFC, > but if you think all comments are resolved and the next version is ready > to be merged, wait for the reopening. > Thanks for asking!
All right then, I gave RFC a try: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20250528-vsock-test-inc-cov-v2-0-8f655b40d...@rbox.co/ >>>>>>>> +static void test_stream_transport_uaf_client(const struct test_opts >>>>>>>> *opts) >>>>>>>> +{ >>>>>>>> + bool tested = false; >>>>>>>> + int cid; >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> + for (cid = VMADDR_CID_HYPERVISOR; cid <= VMADDR_CID_HOST + 1; >>>>>>>> ++cid) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> + tested |= test_stream_transport_uaf(cid); >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> + if (!tested) >>>>>>>> + fprintf(stderr, "No transport tested\n"); >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> control_writeln("DONE"); >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While we're at it, I think we can remove this message, looking at >>>>>>> run_tests() in util.c, we already have a barrier. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ok, sure. Note that console output gets slightly de-synchronised: server >>>>>> will immediately print next test's prompt and wait there. >>>>> >>>>> I see, however I don't have a strong opinion, you can leave it that way >>>>> if you prefer. >>>> >>>> How about adding a sync point to run_tests()? E.g. >>> >>> Yep, why not, of course in another series :-) >>> >>> And if you like, you can remove that specific sync point in that series >>> and check also other tests, but I think we have only that one. >> >> OK, I'll leave that for later. > > Yep, feel free to discard my suggestion, we can fix it later. I was thinking about doing a console-output-beautification series with: 1) drop the redundant sync in test_stream_transport_uaf_*, 2) add a sync in run_tests(). But I guess we can have the sync dropping part here. Definitely less churn this way. Thanks, Michal
