From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yw0-f170.google.com (mail-yw0-f170.google.com [209.85.161.170]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BBF258C8 for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 07:32:38 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-yw0-f170.google.com with SMTP id t125so212536919ywc.1 for ; Thu, 01 Dec 2016 22:32:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=e8CLwKEsYJw8l8lDITJiC31BOl5E2+brEShqZhJilHE=; b=JOhpbjnmK1nIvCqLWJ/O4ONJIXdAfwWNHPgXahbYaEKKWT/4wQej5krAlmR975by5n WDU8d6bUtEmFSG5ZC9NDkb31IQJK0aC8BFiINPzn0i6cz/F+YCdTWy8N+oCeLFKJoU7E E4ILJtOWnecDTNGRIhOVYptBrrDnoocgKytnI= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=e8CLwKEsYJw8l8lDITJiC31BOl5E2+brEShqZhJilHE=; b=K3D5KOEk7KIfdwhG72raOYoWkUBBOXjALrzFCZN7WsOxuBkqLgKKQzE6+zpfU5UZa2 YemMIz9lPjL7ZRxHvC/kpg+Ui37W/yr3ljJj/E19YhfeZ7FGRtbTPuDoMjkHFFNN++rh P1fJx3uGvJPj7T72yDaBgx54FJaTcXTb/8atHp5dG1zz7c2OAcqPM/f0hvU84DHQvWF4 ZwtPpLN+tmVb7XhSsoClxGPlwe44/KWWwUmHve0CHtFjy94NiCzjyjtDeTbf1sMBCHLA qJudTA0PbpoJaWfK6OExCaTDV9X82MvG59lAXFibyj/gkE7InILu3kVPftjn/EyTA+iY 3nuw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC008l/d0p/EuBw0qq+62NwOAHtVoLpS44FN4LroC8oeF5oER3V5Z/dn2H7qOcE24DSucbNiN4R8G/HK1QqBi X-Received: by 10.129.72.147 with SMTP id v141mr49463222ywa.236.1480660357804; Thu, 01 Dec 2016 22:32:37 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.193.131 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 22:32:37 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <86228AFD5BCD8E4EBFD2B90117B5E81E6033568F@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <1480646757-13829-1-git-send-email-jianbo.liu@linaro.org> <86228AFD5BCD8E4EBFD2B90117B5E81E6033532C@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> <86228AFD5BCD8E4EBFD2B90117B5E81E6033561C@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> <86228AFD5BCD8E4EBFD2B90117B5E81E6033568F@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> From: Jianbo Liu Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 14:32:37 +0800 Message-ID: To: "Liu, Yong" Cc: "dts@dpdk.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [dts] [PATCH] tests mac_filter: use scapy to send packets X-BeenThere: dts@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: test suite reviews and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 06:32:38 -0000 On 2 December 2016 at 14:13, Liu, Yong wrote: > Jianbo, we use Jekins to schedule our automation tasks. DTS is used for generate function/performance result. > All results on test machines will be collected and summary by Jekins Job. > Thanks, that is what I want to achieve... >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jianbo Liu [mailto:jianbo.liu@linaro.org] >> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2016 2:07 PM >> To: Liu, Yong >> Cc: dts@dpdk.org >> Subject: Re: [dts] [PATCH] tests mac_filter: use scapy to send packets >> >> On 2 December 2016 at 13:44, Liu, Yong wrote: >> > Jianbo, could you explain your usage model? We are now running DTS on >> tester machine. >> > >> >> We want to integrate it into our CI environment. If running DTS on >> tester, it's very hard to setup. >> How does Intel setup these automation testings? >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Jianbo Liu [mailto:jianbo.liu@linaro.org] >> >> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2016 11:45 AM >> >> To: Liu, Yong >> >> Cc: dts@dpdk.org >> >> Subject: Re: [dts] [PATCH] tests mac_filter: use scapy to send packets >> >> >> >> Hi Marvin, >> >> >> >> On 2 December 2016 at 11:27, Liu, Yong wrote: >> >> > Hi Jianbo, >> >> > Packet module is one abstract layer based on scapy. We abstracted >> this >> >> layer for monitoring scapy process and integrating sniff/configuration >> >> function. >> >> > It should work the same as scapy command. I'm interesting in why your >> >> intended to use scapy replace of Packet module. >> >> > >> >> I assume dts can be run on a different machine from tester. Am I right? >> >> But I got the following error, as the module sends packets through its >> >> local port, not the tester's port, but they are different if dts is >> >> not run on tester machine. >> > >> > Yes, that's our original plan. But based on time efficiency and real >> usage model, we assume >> > Tester and DTS will use same machine. Can we keep the original design, because it looks strange that some parts of dts can be run on different machine, others must on the same machine as tester?