On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 10:45:19AM +0200, Alessandro wrote: > On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 at 10:25, Hangbin Liu <liuhang...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 09:43:11AM +0200, Alessandro Ratti wrote: > > > On systems where `ifconfig` is not available (e.g., modern Debian), the > > > `kci_test_promote_secondaries` test fails. Wrap the call in a check. > > > > > > Additionally, `do_test_address_proto` fails on iproute2 versions that > > > lack support for `proto` in `ip address` commands. Add a minimal feature > > > check and skip the test with a proper message if unsupported. > > > > > > These changes allow the tests to run and report SKIP instead of FAIL on > > > platforms with older tools. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alessandro Ratti <alessan...@0x65c.net> > > > --- > > > tools/testing/selftests/net/rtnetlink.sh | 10 +++++++++- > > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/rtnetlink.sh > > > b/tools/testing/selftests/net/rtnetlink.sh > > > index d6c00efeb664..9bff620ef595 100755 > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/rtnetlink.sh > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/rtnetlink.sh > > > @@ -330,7 +330,9 @@ kci_test_promote_secondaries() > > > for i in $(seq 2 254);do > > > IP="10.23.11.$i" > > > ip -f inet addr add $IP/16 brd + dev "$devdummy" > > > - ifconfig "$devdummy" $IP netmask 255.255.0.0 > > > + if command -v ifconfig >/dev/null 2>&1; then > > > + ifconfig "$devdummy" $IP netmask 255.255.0.0 > > > + fi > > > > Maybe just skip the promote_secondaries test if ifconfig is not available? > > > > Thank you for your review and comment. > > My takeaway here is that the test works because the IP addresses are set on > the > $devdummy by the previous ip(8) command, and ifconfig seems a bit redundant.
No, please check the git log to see why we use ifconfig here. Thanks Hangbin > > Also, considering we are testing netlink, I was baffled to see ifconfig there > that, if I'm not mistaken, uses ioctl(); but I might be missing > something obvious > here, considering I'm looking at these tests for the first time, so bear with > me :) > > If it's better to skip the test altogether when ifconfig is missing, I'll > submit another patch to do so. > > Thank you > > Best regards, > Alessandro
