Hi Mateusz, On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 at 16:19, Mateusz Furdyna (Nokia) <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 14/06/2026 14:16, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Mateusz, > > > > On 2026-06-10T14:25:33, Mateusz Furdyna <[email protected]> wrote: > >> test: net: add IP defragmentation duplicate-fragment regression test > >> > >> Add a unit test for the IP datagram reassembler (CONFIG_IP_DEFRAG) that > >> covers the duplicate-last-fragment scenario. > >> > >> Without the fix the last fragment will re-trigger datagram delivery, > >> increasing udp_rx_count to 2 and effectively failing the test; with it > >> applied the test passes with udp_rx_count == 1. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Mateusz Furdyna <[email protected]> > >> > >> test/dm/Makefile | 1 + > >> test/dm/net_defrag.c | 82 > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> 2 files changed, 83 insertions(+) > > > > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]> > > > >> diff --git a/test/dm/net_defrag.c b/test/dm/net_defrag.c > >> @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ > >> +DM_TEST(dm_test_net_ip_defrag_dup_last, 0); > > > > Just to check, does this test actually use driver model? > No, it doesn't. It drives net_process_received_packet() directly, > nothing is actually using DM in the test path. > > I'd followed the existing precedent in test/dm/eth.c > (dm_test_string_to_ip6(), which similarly doesn't exercise DM), which is > what prompted my earlier question about whether "ut dm" was the right > home for this (and stopped me for looking further, my bad). > > I'm happy to move it to the lib suite, for instance. Since Jerome has > already queued this v2 for net/master: should I create v3, a follow-up > on top of what's queued or just leave it as-is in DM?
Since it works, this is fine. We can always adjust it later if problems come up. Regards, Simon
