On Mon, 27 Oct 2025 20:46:00 +0100 Andrew Lunn wrote:
- def test_config(config):
try:cfg.eth.channels_set(ehdr | config)get = cfg.eth.channels_get(ehdr)for k, v in config.items():ksft_eq(get.get(k, 0), v)except NlError as e:failed.append(mix)ksft_pr("Can't set", config, e)else:ksft_pr("Okay", config)We expect failure to leave the configuration unchanged. So i would actually do:
try: before = get() set() except: after = get() fail(after != before)
Please allow me to introduce you to the magic of defer() ;) This registers a command to run after the test completely exits:
+ defer(cfg.eth.channels_set, ehdr | restore)
Also, does nlError contain the error code?
fail(e.errcode not in (EINVAL, EOPNOTSUPP))It would be good to detect and fail ENOTSUPP, which does appear every so often, when it should not.
Dunno, checkpatch warns about ENOTSUPP. I don't that think checking for funny error codes in every test scales :(
- # Try to reach min on all settings
- for param in params:
val = rings[param]while True:try:cfg.eth.rings_set({'header':{'dev-index': cfg.ifindex},param: val // 2})val //= 2if val <= 1:breakexcept NlError:breakIs 0 ever valid? I would actually test 0 and make sure it fails with EINVAL, or EOPNOTSUPP. Getting range checks wrong is a typical bug, so it is good to test them. The happy days cases are boring because developers tend to test those, so they are hardly worth testings. Its the edge cases which should be tested.
I believe that 0 is a valid settings. I don't have much experience with devices which support it. But presumably using 0 to disable mini/jumbo rings would make sense for example? And max validation is done by the core so nothing interesting to explore there at the driver level :(