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