Received: by 2002:ac0:a5a6:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id m35-v6csp5143754imm; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 05:09:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdZ+SPWFputH6mmgcuiuSkDcPSqND1WDTDoUFMpYaemF7sNze/d5EbYdEgTD5IewpIbRij0C X-Received: by 2002:a63:d002:: with SMTP id z2-v6mr27992068pgf.262.1537272579139; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 05:09:39 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1537272579; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=UYBgqdw1RFBKWK3ien2BE+uV4HLKi7+V3o3dvwYse3PuXyEiNQob9nH0g0kdUWln68 lQW1kawMsujBk+BDLRcOMs8kmqJhC7Zn9KJt4UoNrmxMlfvkk8sWpf2wnOM/dh0tpzYM p7KUjbLuLHrOiZIWrqOWvroZnN7DBr2JeK3UD++UiH6kwhFaG+F2s9YL1wbywWDz8jE0 R4XQ3v+2cUIdi+PIVfUkNYK0BM/ll5LV8VHQws010oVaUfoTbAcoty3byrwuNWHolbsU 9LxRxdLqpgGjIci49Tfvp7nEaeoYE9IiO73lU9ChnhWCAKBz8rZdhltQOUQKbueA5IH7 5Oww== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding :content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date :message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject; bh=RM1LK2m6kMqB5HFL/VXP9dBQxr4iht7yB3IcwHImBac=; b=ClteJpwgtM3q+uOmkcPbXrT59rBFo/ZmOb6QjTErVGjV8vuvCj8jchjpJa3k2SU2MJ Qch6MMi5rK5hXZtaKhkppbDrnF8XHUq7t5263Hr7YrZfzHGSIKBmM8y1zDIBYCATzaoL ldPS8zFGXNZBBLw3najRDJGecHXlFnvGC8ZIO/yiwmE6mTYrdiq2gbbEdObdQgX9gQ3S eBjAI7uPh8OqtlAdF6LUtt+Cq7KIOO7W16Fa4JUmY1LaikkVNStjmU/G9Y8pTzE0ZwtU uOd+oup0+3KZx3O28cI8cp4TFGxfGByXirPt2eNLAGpm676jeoU6hbsKXQolBNkD1aZ4 Nxsg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id w16-v6si17949655pgj.61.2018.09.18.05.09.12; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 05:09:39 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728828AbeIRRlY (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 18 Sep 2018 13:41:24 -0400 Received: from www62.your-server.de ([213.133.104.62]:45694 "EHLO www62.your-server.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726037AbeIRRlY (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Sep 2018 13:41:24 -0400 Received: from [78.46.172.3] (helo=sslproxy06.your-server.de) by www62.your-server.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.85_2) (envelope-from ) id 1g2EoN-00032N-UO; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:08:59 +0200 Received: from [178.197.249.15] (helo=linux.home) by sslproxy06.your-server.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1g2EoN-0003AN-Og; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:08:59 +0200 Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree To: Stephen Rothwell , Vakul Garg Cc: David Miller , Networking , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "davejwatson@fb.com" , "doronrk@fb.com" References: <20180918101107.74d8689a@canb.auug.org.au> <93982e9d-dc78-6423-bb9b-c5773d98e244@iogearbox.net> <236589cd-b55d-1ceb-f236-36f9135f794e@iogearbox.net> <5959dad0-dd02-1c3d-2487-13a69f8c507b@iogearbox.net> <20180918214814.4eae366d@canb.auug.org.au> From: Daniel Borkmann Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:08:59 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180918214814.4eae366d@canb.auug.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-Sender: daniel@iogearbox.net X-Virus-Scanned: Clear (ClamAV 0.100.1/24951/Tue Sep 18 10:16:39 2018) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/18/2018 01:48 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 10:17:03 +0000 Vakul Garg wrote: >> >> Got it. >> Thanks for the guidance. > > So, what should I remove? ;-) My (very own personal) preference in general would be that we test / assert the kernel behavior that exists /today/, meaning once we implement support for multi-record peek we add the corresponding test case along with that code. Fwiw, this practice would be consistent with the rest of the kernel selftests development model we have under net (& bpf). Thanks, Daniel