[LTP] [PATCH v1] lib/tst_test.sh: skip test if ip returns "Error: Unknown device type"

[Petr Vorel]

> On 27.07.2021 13:02, Petr Vorel wrote:
> > Hi Alexey, Radoslav,

> >> Hi Radoslav,

> >> On 27.07.2021 11:20, Radoslav Kolev wrote:
> >>> On 7/22/21 10:49 AM, Petr Vorel wrote:
> >>>> Hi Radoslav,

> >>>>> In network stress test groups there are tests expecting
> >>>>> CONFIG_NET_IPVTI to be enabled in the kernel, and if it's not they
> >>>>> fail. There is a check for VTI support in the ip utility, but not
> >>>>> for the kernel. Skip these tests if vti device type is not known by
> >>>>> the kernel.
> >>>> LGTM.
> >>>> Reviewed-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>

> >>> Thanks for the review, Petr!

> >>> Alexey, please let me know if you have any comments.



> >> What about checking vti drivers in stress/ipsec/ipsec_lib.sh:tst_ipsec_setup_vti()
> >> Similar to the checks for xfrm_user driver there...

> >> For example:

> >> tst_net_run -q "tst_check_drivers ip_vti ip6_vti" || \
> >>     tst_brk TCONF "vti driver not available on lhost or rhost"


> >> I think this should work for wireguard02 test as well.

> > The above LGTM, Radoslav, do you have time to look into it?
> > Alexey, do we also accept this patch? IMHO this error should be mostly TCONF and
> > it'd work for other possible drivers.


> Not sure if we really want to add the new patterns every time the
> error message from ip changes. For example depending on the ip/libc
> the error can be "Error: Unknown device type." or "RTNETLINK answers:
> Not supported".
Sure, more effective ways are always welcome.

> We could also save the error message in setup by passing the wrong
> type and then compare it during the test:

> no_dev_msg="$(ip link add ltp0 type ltp0 2>&1)"
Yep, that'd be safer. But your original proposal to check ip_vti ip6_vti
is IMHO the best solution. Radoslav, would you send a new patch with it?

Kind regards,
Petr