Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 09:49:28 -0400 Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > Eventually probably want a more generic fault injection class. > > > > And for both fault injection and background traffic the with object > > construct to ensure cleanup in all cases. > > > > Maybe even the same for ethtool, as ip and ethtool config changes that > > need to be reverted to original state will be common. > > Agreed, the nice way of wrapping all that has not revealed itself to me > yet. When we discussed it with Petr a while back he was suggesting > "with", and I was thinking of creating an object with test as the > parent. The with is nicer but here we'd end up doing: > > with a(): > # some code > with b(): > # more code > with c(): > # check traffic > > which offends my sensibilities. > > There are many options, hard to say which one is best without having > a bunch of tests to convert as a litmus test :S So I stuck to "finally"
Entirely reasonable. Btw, I have a preliminary tools/testing/selftests/net/csum test on top of this series. The only interesting points so far are the use of deploy (which I assume you have on some internal patch already) and that with bkg would not fail the test if the background process exits with error.
