Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] netconsole: selftest: Add test for fragmented messages

[Simon Horman]

On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 04:39:38AM -0800, Breno Leitao wrote:
> Add a new selftest to verify netconsole's handling of messages that
> exceed the packet size limit and require fragmentation. The test sends
> messages with varying sizes and userdata, validating that:
> 
> 1. Large messages are correctly fragmented and reassembled
> 2. Userdata fields are properly preserved across fragments
> 3. Messages work correctly with and without kernel release version
>    appending
> 
> The test creates a networking environment using netdevsim, sends
> messages through /dev/kmsg, and verifies the received fragments maintain
> message integrity.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@xxxxxxxxxx>

...

> +# Validate the message, which has two messages glued together.
> +# unwrap them to make sure all the characters were transmitted.
> +# File will look like the following:
> +#   13,468,514729715,-,ncfrag=0/1135;MSG1=MSG2=MSG3=MSG4=MSG5=MSG6=MSG7=MSG8=MSG9=MSG10=MSG11=MSG12=MSG13=MSG14=MSG15=MSG16=MSG17=MSG18=MSG19=MSG20=MSG21=MSG22=MSG23=MSG24=MSG25=MSG26=MSG27=MSG28=MSG29=MSG30=MSG31=MSG32=MSG33=MSG34=MSG35=MSG36=MSG37=MSG38=MSG39=MSG40=MSG41=MSG42=MSG43=MSG44=MSG45=MSG46=MSG47=MSG48=MSG49=MSG50=MSG51=MSG52=MSG53=MSG54=MSG55=MSG56=MSG57=MSG58=MSG59=MSG60=MSG61=MSG62=MSG63=MSG64=MSG65=MSG66=MSG67=MSG68=MSG69=MSG70=MSG71=MSG72=MSG73=MSG74=MSG75=MSG76=MSG77=MSG78=MSG79=MSG80=MSG81=MSG82=MSG83=MSG84=MSG85=MSG86=MSG87=MSG88=MSG89=MSG90=MSG91=MSG92=MSG93=MSG94=MSG95=MSG96=MSG97=MSG98=MSG99=MSG100=MSG101=MSG102=MSG103=MSG104=MSG105=MSG106=MSG107=MSG108=MSG109=MSG110=MSG111=MSG112=MSG113=MSG114=MSG115=MSG116=MSG117=MSG118=MSG119=MSG120=MSG121=MSG122=MSG123=MSG124=MSG125=MSG126=MSG127=MSG128=MSG129=MSG130=MSG131=MSG132=MSG133=MSG134=MSG135=MSG136=MSG137=MSG138=MSG139=MSG140=MSG141=MSG142=MSG143=MSG144=MSG145=MSG146=MSG147=MSG148=MSG149=MSG150=: netcons_nzmJQ
> +#    key=1-2-13,468,514729715,-,ncfrag=967/1135;3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-21-22-23-24-25-26-27-28-29-30-31-32-33-34-35-36-37-38-39-40-41-42-43-44-45-46-47-48-49-50-51-52-53-54-55-56-57-58-59-60-

Hi Breno,

I appreciate there is a value in providing the literal data.
But as the data is based mostly of arithmetic sequences
perhaps it would be nicer to express this in a more succinct way.

Regardless, this patch looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxx>

...