On 2/23/23 16:33, Simon Horman wrote: > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 04:09:10PM +0100, Ilya Maximets wrote: >> On 2/23/23 15:19, Ilya Maximets wrote: >>> On 2/23/23 14:02, Simon Horman wrote: > > ... > >>>> + AT_CHECK([ >>>> + if ! tc qdisc add dev veth0 handle ffff: ingress; then >>>> + ip link del veth0 >>> >>> Instead of deleting in every branch, we might add on_exit call somewhere >>> at the beginning of this function. The port will stick around till the >>> end of the test, but I'm not sure if that's a problem if the name is >>> special enough. Or we may keep one extra del at the very end. >>> >>> With on_exit, can probably be transformed into something like (untested): >>> >>> AT_CHECK([tc qdisc add dev veth0 handle ffff: ingress || exit 77]) >> >> Just AT_SKIP_IF([! tc qdisc add dev veth0 handle ffff: ingress]) should >> work, I guess. > > The reason I used AT_CHECK rather than AT_SKIP_IF was to > capture stderr/stdout. Which serves two purposes: > > 1. It avoids mess on the console - although that could also > be avoided with something like >& /dev/null > 2. The capture output is useful in debugging > e.g. when developing this script. > > I can move to AT_SKIP_IF if you have a strong preference. > But AT_CHECK did seem a bit better to me - except the '77' bit.
Makes sense. AT_CHECK is fine then. Best regards, Ilya Maximets. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
