On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 10:06 AM Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 09:53:11AM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 5:21 AM Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 12:51:43PM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote: > > > > Can you share this "rebased to mainline" version of George's patch? > > > > > > You can pick it from there if that helps, but keep in mind that > > > it's just experimental code that we use to explain our ideas and > > > that we really don't care a single second what kernel it's applied > > > to: > > > > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wtarreau/cleanups.git/log/?h=20200811-prandom-1 > > > > > > > Thanks Willy. > > > > I disagree: the base for testing should be clear(ly communicated). > > It is. As you can see on the log above, this was applied on top of > fc80c51fd4b2, there's nothing special here. In addition we're not even > talking about testing nor calling for testers, just trying to find a > reasonable solution. Maybe today I'll be able to re-run a few tests by > the way. >
I agree with publishing in your Git tree it is clear. > > There are two diffs from Eric to #1: add a trace event for > > prandom_u32() and #2: a removal of prandom_u32() call in > > tcp_conn_request(). > > In case you have not seen. > > I've seen, just not had the time to test yet. > Can you describe and share your test-environment/setup? The Linux-kernel has kunit tests (I never played with that) - you happen to know there is a suitable one available? Maybe the Linux Test Project has some suitable tests? - Sedat -
