Breno Leitao wrote: > Hello Jakub, > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 06:24:27PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 10:35:06 -0700 Breno Leitao wrote: > > > Extend the `check_for_dependencies()` function in `lib_netcons.sh` to > > > check > > > whether IPv6 is enabled by verifying the existence of > > > `/proc/net/if_inet6`. Having IPv6 is a now a dependency of netconsole > > > tests. If the file does not exist, the script will skip the test with an > > > appropriate message suggesting to verify if `CONFIG_IPV6` is enabled. > > > > > > This prevents the test to misbehave if IPv6 is not configured. > > > > IDK. I think this is related to some of the recent patches? > > Yes, commit 3dc6c76391cbe (“selftests: net: Add IPv6 support to > netconsole basic tests”) introduced IPv6 support to the netconsole basic > tests. > > Because the NIPA config enables IPv6, the tests pass in that > environment. However, if the tests are run somewhere without IPv6 > support such as in a test I was doing regarding another patch, they will > fail, when it should be skipped. > > > The context would be helpful in the commit message. > > Apologies for not including more context in the commit message. > > > Otherwise, as networking people, I think we are obligated > > to respond with hostility to "IPv6 may not be enabled".. > > As for handling systems without IPv6, if IPv6 isn’t available, the > intention is for the test to be skipped. That’s exactly what this patch > addresses.
I think there is some consensus that these environments should no longer exist in 2025. And test failure is the best way to accomplish that. Less opinionated: the tests implicitly depends on the config files in the test directory. Do we have to start making the robust against situations where CONFIGs in that file are missing? > I did consider making the test adaptable so it would just run with > whichever protocol (IPv4 or IPv6) is present, but rejected that > approach. Allowing the test to “pass” in such cases doesn’t really > demonstrate meaningful coverage, since the test isn’t actually being > exercised as intended. > > In short, it seems more appropriate to skip the test entirely if all > conditions aren’t met, so, you know that your .config needs adjustment. > > Thanks for your review, > --breno
