On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 09:30:08PM +0200, Hans Schultz wrote:

On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 19:40, Ido Schimmel [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 05:41:06PM +0200, Hans Schultz wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 10:44, Ido Schimmel [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

+	$MZ $swp1 -c 1 -p 128 -t udp "sp=54321,dp=12345" \
+		-a $mac -b `mac_get $h2` -A 192.0.2.1 -B 192.0.2.2 -q
+	tc_check_packets "dev $swp2 egress" 1 1
+	check_fail $? "Dynamic FDB entry did not age out"

Shouldn't this be check_err()? After the FDB entry was aged you want to
make sure that packets received via $swp1 with SMAC being $mac are no
longer forwarded by the bridge.

I was thinking that check_fail() will pass when tc_check_packets() does
not see any packets, thus the test passing here when no packets are forwarded?

What do you mean by "I was *thinking*"? How is it possible that you are
submitting a selftest that you didn't bother running?!

Sorry, but I have sent you several emails telling you about the problems
I have with running the selftests due to changes in the phy etc. Maybe
you have just not received all those emails?

Have you checked spamfilters?

With the kernels now, I cannot even test with the software bridge and
selftests as the compile fails - probably due to changes in uapi headers
compared to what the packages my system uses expects.

My spam filters are fine. I saw your emails where you basically said
that you are too lazy to setup a VM to test your patches and that your
time is more valuable than mine, which is why I should be testing them.
Stop making your problems our problems. It's hardly the first time. If
you are unable to test your patches, then invest the time in fixing your
setup instead of submitting completely broken patches and making it our
problem to test and fix them. I refuse to invest time in reviewing /
testing / reworking your submissions as long as you insist on doing less
than the bare minimum.

Good luck