On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 05:04:02PM +0200, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
Hi Greg,
On 09/04/2024 14:16, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 06:10:38PM +0200, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
Hi Greg,
On 08/04/2024 13:31, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 05:36:40PM +0200, Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) wrote:
From: Geliang Tang tanggeliang@kylinos.cn
This patch uses addition assignment operator (+=) to append strings instead of duplicating the variable name in mptcp_connect.sh and mptcp_join.sh.
This can make the statements shorter.
Note: in mptcp_connect.sh, add a local variable extra in do_transfer to save the various extra warning logs, using += to append it. And add a new variable tc_info to save various tc info, also using += to append it. This can make the code more readable and prepare for the next commit.
Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang tanggeliang@kylinos.cn Reviewed-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) matttbe@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) matttbe@kernel.org Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240308-upstream-net-next-20240308-selftests-mptc... Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski kuba@kernel.org (cherry picked from commit e7c42bf4d320affe37337aa83ae0347832b3f568) Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) matttbe@kernel.org
.../selftests/net/mptcp/mptcp_connect.sh | 53 ++++++++++--------- .../testing/selftests/net/mptcp/mptcp_join.sh | 30 +++++------ 2 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
Odd, this one did not apply.
Indeed, that's odd. Do you use a different merge strategy?
I do not use any merge strategy at all, I use 'patch' to apply patches (well, that's what quilt does), so git is not involved here.
Ah OK, thank you for the explanation. I thought git was used to do the cherry-pick + generate the patch for quilt.
No, git is used only to export the patch from the tree if a git id is used. As you sent a patch here, I just used your patch for this.
I'm still surprised quilt didn't accept these patches generated on top of the 6.6-y branch. (By "chance", did you not have conflicts because the patch 1/5 (commit 629b35a225b0 ("selftests: mptcp: display simult in extra_msg")) didn't get backported by accident? It is strange it is also missing in the v6.6.y branch.)
I do not remember if there were conflicts or not, sorry.
How about just resending this one patch after the next 6.6.y release that comes out in a day or so.
No hurry, that can indeed wait for the next 6.6.y release.
Just to be sure we are aligned: I suggested backporting these 5 commits:
- 629b35a225b0 ("selftests: mptcp: display simult in extra_msg")
This one I've now queued up.
- e3aae1098f10 ("selftests: mptcp: connect: fix shellcheck warnings")
Was already in the tree.
- e7c42bf4d320 ("selftests: mptcp: use += operator to append strings")
Failed to apply
- 8e2b8a9fa512 ("mptcp: don't overwrite sock_ops in mptcp_is_tcpsk()")
In the tree.
- 7a1b3490f47e ("mptcp: don't account accept() of non-MPC client as
fallback to TCP")
In the tree.
But only these 3 got backported to 6.6.y:
- e3aae1098f10 ("selftests: mptcp: connect: fix shellcheck warnings")
- 8e2b8a9fa512 ("mptcp: don't overwrite sock_ops in mptcp_is_tcpsk()")
- 7a1b3490f47e ("mptcp: don't account accept() of non-MPC client as
fallback to TCP")
The last commit ("mptcp: don't account accept() of non-MPC client as fallback to TCP") has a small problem in 6.6.y (only):
- In case of issue, a message will say that the subtest is OK and not
OK, and the TAP report will report that everything is OK with this subtest => that's OK, nothing critical, that's the tests.
- We can solve that in the next 6.6 version by manually backporting
commit e7c42bf4d320 ("selftests: mptcp: use += operator to append strings") and its dependence: commit 629b35a225b0 ("selftests: mptcp: display simult in extra_msg").
Patches gladly accepted :)
thanks,
greg k-h