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

[Simon Horman]

On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 03:00:37AM -0800, Breno Leitao wrote:
> Hello Simon,
> 
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 10:48:55AM +0000, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 04:39:38AM -0800, Breno Leitao wrote:
> 
> > > +# 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-
> 
> > 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.
> 
> First of all, thanks for the review.
> 
> Do you mean I should simplify this comment above, to avoid the literal
> data, right?

Thanks Breno,

Yes, that is what I meant.

> > Regardless, this patch looks good to me.
> 
> Thanks, I was a bit surprised with the tests failing on our CI, but,
> after some investigation, it doesn't seem to be caused by this change.
> 
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20250131-netcons_frag_msgs-v1-1-0de83bf2a7e6@xxxxxxxxxx/
> 
> --breno
>