Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-84820-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <7ae930a7-3b10-4470-94ee-89cb650b3349@csgroup.eu>
 <e11fea7a-e99e-4539-a489-0aa145ee65f0@roeck-us.net> <ZdzPgSCTntY7JD5i@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
 <ZdzZ5tk459bgUrgz@ghost> <ZdzhRntTHApp0doV@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
 <b13b8847977d4cfa99b6a0c9a0fcbbcf@AcuMS.aculab.com> <Zd0b8SDT8hrG/0yW@ghost>
 <cdd09f7a-83b2-41ba-a32c-9886dd79c43e@roeck-us.net> <9b4ce664-3ddb-4789-9d5d-8824f9089c48@csgroup.eu>
 <Zd25XWTkDPuIjpF8@shell.armlinux.org.uk> <Zd58jvN3PjQSe+yt@ghost>
 <c0449c0a-33bc-49c4-97e3-56a79a6ce93e@csgroup.eu> <02bb92c3-a14c-4a77-a3b0-a7c857d1d60d@roeck-us.net>
In-Reply-To: <02bb92c3-a14c-4a77-a3b0-a7c857d1d60d@roeck-us.net>
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 11:15:33 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdW-sUYr8_y6av9Dbtz6JJAxBUsiTGZcK2QYEHo0x1z44w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10] lib: checksum: Use aligned accesses for ip_fast_csum
 and csum_ipv6_magic tests
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>, Charlie Jenkins <charlie@rivosinc.com>, 
	"Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>, David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>, 
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, 
	Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>, 
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>, 
	Parisc List <linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, 
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>, 
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, 
	"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>, 
	KUnit Development <kunit-dev@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

CC testing

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 8:59=E2=80=AFAM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> =
wrote:
> On 2/27/24 23:25, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> [ ... ]
> >>
> >> This test case is supposed to be as true to the "general case" as
> >> possible, so I have aligned the data along 14 + NET_IP_ALIGN. On ARM
> >> this will be a 16-byte boundary since NET_IP_ALIGN is 2. A driver that
> >> does not follow this may not be appropriately tested by this test case=
,
> >> but anyone is welcome to submit additional test cases that address thi=
s
> >> additional alignment concern.
> >
> > But then this test case is becoming less and less true to the "general
> > case" with this patch, whereas your initial implementation was almost
> > perfect as it was covering most cases, a lot more than what we get with
> > that patch applied.
> >
> NP with me if that is where people want to go. I'll simply disable checks=
um
> tests on all architectures which don't support unaligned accesses (so far
> it looks like that is only arm with thumb instructions, and possibly nios=
2).
> I personally find that less desirable and would have preferred a second
> configurable set of tests for unaligned accesses, but I have no problem
> with it.

IMHO the tests should validate the expected functionality.  If a test
fails, either functionality is missing or behaves wrong, or the test
is wrong.

What is the point of writing tests for a core functionality like network
checksumming that do not match the expected functionality?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--=20
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k=
org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. Bu=
t
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like t=
hat.
                                -- Linus Torvalds