From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E94D4C4338F for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 21:51:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAA2560F9C for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 21:51:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230051AbhHCVvh (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Aug 2021 17:51:37 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:58650 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229577AbhHCVvg (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Aug 2021 17:51:36 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E780C603E7; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 21:51:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1628027485; bh=Unj5EunJ8A3Xk+wAxY86IYHefC4zVn+7nFtpAcbkyW0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=SYwiOmSyaAU7+7N4M1Rq168qDALgambEyPPDslPDiCkVpplo/wpFNP+GugoMEFGhQ izADxbuy6lkg0W7G3gIF/xCxX1bqOrZMkREDDvQk8XVNt7C7z5l1YTU3WTZe1+TE9r 0UKgo+g7mY+XdNTLJx2p8aaIntY50VMIXaxmoK7YKq6lqjYf/3rbW1NDKgA+l6OJuM MyEgdxPCuxWc9Xhp396vVDzYCuZNaKS38ZaQ+APwHQtLZJIcTgk9spQ2rzuuZzKgjW GqaIppvftIeohRw7/nYHMJHrDNetscEjjZMpTwBqheQoCo0YWau6OJTzmVv2LqPA4e VT1Z5+t9g5bIw== Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 14:51:24 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Cong Wang Cc: David Miller , Linux Kernel Network Developers , "Cong Wang ." , Peilin Ye Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] Revert "netdevsim: Add multi-queue support" Message-ID: <20210803145124.71a8aab4@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20210803123921.2374485-1-kuba@kernel.org> <20210803141839.79e99e23@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 14:32:19 -0700 Cong Wang wrote: > On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 2:18 PM Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > > On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 10:11:13 -0700 Cong Wang wrote: =20 > > > On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 5:39 AM Jakub Kicinski wrote= : =20 > > > Since when netdevsim is *only* for upstream tests? =20 > > > > Since it was created. =20 >=20 > Why it was created only for upstream? IOW, what's wrong with > using it only for non-upstream tests? >=20 > BTW, we also use dummy device for testing, it is not only for > upstream. It is extremely odd to single netdevsim out. I don't > see any special reason here. =46rom my own experience companies which are serious about their engineering have a lot of code dedicated to testing. I don't think we can deal with all such code upstream. At the same time I want to incentivize upstreaming all of the tests which are widely applicable (i.e. not HW-specific). Last but not least test harnesses are really weird from functional, code lifetime and refactoring perspective. netdevsim is not expected to keep uAPI as long as in-tree tests do no break/are updated as well. > > > Even if so, where is this documented? And why not just point it > > > out when reviewing it instead of silently waiting for weeks? =20 > > > > I was AFK for the last two weeks. =20 >=20 > How about documenting it in netdev-FAQ (or literally any doc)? > This would save everyone's time. Fair, I'll send a patch. > > > It is clearly not dead. We internally used it for testing sch_mq, > > > this is clearly stated in the git log. =20 > > > > Please contribute those tests upstream or keep any test harness > > they require where such test are, out of tree. =20 >=20 > Peilin will add tc-testing for sch_mq which requires this netdevsim > feature. >=20 > > =20 > > > How did you draw such a conclusion without talking to authors? =20 > > > > There is no upstream test using this code, and I did CC you, didn't I? = =20 >=20 > There are downstream tests, which are mentioned in changelog. >=20 > I am pretty sure upstream tests only cover part of the whole networking > code, if you really want to apply the rule, a lot of code are already dea= d. > Once again, I don't see any reason why you only treat netdevsim different= ly. > ;) I hope the first part of this response scheds some light. > > > But this does remind me of using netdevsim for tc-testing. =20 > > > > Please bring the code back as part of the series adding upstream tests.= =20 >=20 > Please remove all those not covered by upstream tests just to be fair?? I'd love to remove all test harnesses upstream which are not used by upstream tests, sure :)