Hi! > $ ip netns add testns > > and the following two have to return different IDs: > > $ readlink /proc/self/ns/net > net:[4026531969] > > $ ip netns exec testns readlink /proc/self/ns/net > net:[4026532368] > > (And the kernel tests would ideally ensure that different procfs/ns > values *really* result in different namespaces based on tested > behavior.)
That sounds reasonable and easy enough. > > Agree that the kernel functionality is the same. But how does having two > > different testcases one for kernel functionality and one for ip decrease > > maintenance ratio? This soulution would IMHO be more complicated. The > > coverate should be same. The only aspect in which this solution is > > likely better is test runtime, but that shouldn't be a problem because > > these testcases does not take long time. Or am I mistaken? > > Right now, they don't (IIRC), but will you document it? Will you watch > for future tests added to this area, to make sure they don't take a long > time because of this "hack"? I guess these are the maintenance costs > I'm trying to point out. This sounds reasonable as well. > In the end, my suggestion was really just a suggestion - each approach > has pros and cons and it's up to the author (and you, as an upstream > maintainer) to pick the one you want. And I'm certainly willing to listen to anybody with good ideas ;). -- Cyril Hrubis chru...@suse.cz ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & more Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=190641631&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
