From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 093D2A034F; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 16:22:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DDCB4068B; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 16:22:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 010F440683 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 16:22:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA99C3201F96; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 10:22:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 10 Nov 2021 10:22:19 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm2; bh= /QJgU6oZc9++QrneeShUMJQyvjMC49BRJig98bJbrgI=; b=th8ASbp6qqCnJOKl 0t+iyILhRmNJWnSW9D3I/vRhyU+3LCv0ZRJwOJ1sOCWzr9JT1TJIRyFe7uhqG0yb XqxLnsVpgR5Sd52AkU9CGdRyOlZZLZWFTofASGcw8pJqTtXJUR8kfBAdTeatmf01 HapYfF/TlVEqo80inScDJT5cnbhj9V0jUFmvqum84Bndbfd9Wy+Wgb1Civy5wtLh BJYPtTLtZGcvfIN9E8OnL0UvmGZ8/Irio+4tLkQLPX08gdqdHo1yLcfWya2tpbkg AwOCJMrQsnZwKE28v79sG0VKVJbVMLRchLdaFet2kd3N/lyR3QEK+F49SzJD8Knq IIGJ0w== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=/QJgU6oZc9++QrneeShUMJQyvjMC49BRJig98bJbr gI=; b=bqzZdxg1pDKWhJqXaNfUVliytPMFMkC38jsar600fzOJmVLuV90nFaDOr Qypz3+1c8k3lzlkfijQg6EtLo46hkWUZdUJuLuNI2XT64ali1HcSTvL5YuI5GPvs 5wLAHOo8PPuYJ/vSJde5Uj+xaHOlWwfWXwK7+m42STGjUdldyx2ZajJhjR6aKvwN R2MKOvGzjrcA5jh6DdSG7FgjMC+ZyoJARJe/A0D7z/ccZoIJZXO2BfMzw+hd9g+n ylXcQtksUCkOEAY5SpZoKqvSDD54rqz8E/F4Kp6O3PLkTV2Nyk6DS8W4udBkZNdo a41JKUqQ+yopGKdnPg+sAOPJPz4Uw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvuddrudejgdejgecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpeffvdffjeeuteelfeeileduudeugfetjeelveefkeejfeeigeehteff vdekfeegudenucffohhmrghinhepughpughkrdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivg eptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdr nhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 10:22:17 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: konstantin.ananyev@intel.com, bluca@debian.org, dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] test/bpf_convert: do not require DNS lookup Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 16:22:16 +0100 Message-ID: <3072467.O75PRPML0V@thomas> In-Reply-To: <20211109210403.114391-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> References: <20211109210403.114391-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org 09/11/2021 22:04, Stephen Hemminger: > These tests are testing with strings with hostname (dpdk.org) > and this makes test code do a DNS lookup. In container test > runs, DNS is unavailable. Replace dpdk.org with the current > IP and IPV6 addresses. Actual addresses don't matter the purpose > of the test is to BPF code conversion, not any packets. > > Reported-by: Luca Boccassi > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger > --- > --- a/app/test/test_bpf.c > +++ b/app/test/test_bpf.c > - "host dpdk.org and not (port 80 or port 25)", > - "host dpdk.org and not port 80 and not port 25", > + "host 92.243.24.197 and not (port 80 or port 25)", > + "host 2001:4b98:dc0:43:216:3eff:feb6:2d88 and not port 80 and not port 25", Wouldn't it be more appropriate to use reserved IP addresses?