[LTP] [PATCH v6 3/3] route: Increase default loop values

[Alexey Kodanev]

On 06.05.2020 18:06, Petr Vorel wrote:
> Hi Alexey,
> 
>> The changes are fine.
> Thanks for your ack.
> 
>> Perhaps for further improvements, ROUTE_CHANGE_NETLINK is limited by
>> "NUM_LOOPS_MAX 65535", it looks unnecessary.
> Sure, I'll remove this. It fails if -c is bigger than INT_MAX, thus suggest:
> 
> +++ testcases/network/stress/route/route-change-netlink.c
> @@ -20,8 +20,6 @@
>  #include "tst_safe_net.h"
>  #include "tst_safe_stdio.h"
>  
> -#define NUM_LOOPS_MAX 65535
> -
>  #define IP_ADDR_DELIM ','
>  #define STR(x) #x
>  #define CHR2STR(x) STR(x)
> @@ -117,8 +115,8 @@ static void setup(void)
>  	if (tst_parse_int(p_opt, &port, 1, 65535))
>  		tst_brk(TBROK, "invalid rhost port '%s'", p_opt);
>  
> -	if (tst_parse_int(c_opt, &num_loops, 1, NUM_LOOPS_MAX)) {
> -		num_loops = NUM_LOOPS_MAX;
> +	if (tst_parse_int(c_opt, &num_loops, 1, INT_MAX)) {
> +		num_loops = INT_MAX;
>  		tst_res(TWARN, "invalid number of loops (-c %s), using: %d",
>  			c_opt, num_loops);
>  	}
> ---
> 
> Or I can use long and LONG_MAX, but IMHO int is OK :)
> 
>> Can we limit the setup only and iterate (adding and deleting) from
>> the beginning or use -i option with -c?
> I'm sorry, I don't understand you. Isn't it INT_MAX enough?


Yes, it's fine, I just wasn't sure why it was added in the first place,
65535, because of some limitation of the ip address setup (you have
added the separate ip max var though) or something else...

> 
> Kind regards,
> Petr
>