search for: locked_port_mab_roam

Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "locked_port_mab_roam".

2023 Mar 28
2
[Bridge] [PATCH v2 net-next 6/6] selftests: forwarding: add dynamic FDB test
...bridge_locked_port.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/bridge_locked_port.sh index dbc7017fd45d..5bf6b2aa1098 100755 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/bridge_locked_port.sh +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/bridge_locked_port.sh @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ ALL_TESTS=" locked_port_mab_roam locked_port_mab_config locked_port_mab_flush + locked_port_dyn_fdb " NUM_NETIFS=4 ``` Which tells me that you didn't even try running it once. Now the test failed as I expected: # ./bridge_locked_port.sh TEST: Locked port ipv4...
2023 Mar 30
1
[Bridge] [PATCH v2 net-next 6/6] selftests: forwarding: add dynamic FDB test
...ools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/bridge_locked_port.sh > index dbc7017fd45d..5bf6b2aa1098 100755 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/bridge_locked_port.sh > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/bridge_locked_port.sh > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ ALL_TESTS=" > locked_port_mab_roam > locked_port_mab_config > locked_port_mab_flush > + locked_port_dyn_fdb > " > > NUM_NETIFS=4 > ``` > > Which tells me that you didn't even try running it once. Not true, it reveals that I forgot to put it in the patch, that's all....
2023 Mar 26
1
[Bridge] [PATCH v2 net-next 6/6] selftests: forwarding: add dynamic FDB test
On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 10:44, Ido Schimmel <idosch at nvidia.com> wrote: >> + $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