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=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,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 E0720C4320A for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 22:04:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7A9560FA0 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 22:04:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232057AbhHCWEu (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Aug 2021 18:04:50 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57422 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231894AbhHCWEt (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Aug 2021 18:04:49 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x102c.google.com (mail-pj1-x102c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05DEBC06175F for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2021 15:04:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x102c.google.com with SMTP id nh14so153798pjb.2 for ; Tue, 03 Aug 2021 15:04:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ggnDE40oA0h2/cA2reKHlypvOeV8FnIoF6TIRY2rDnM=; b=cZdIlUlinznvCAsUOfTq+uecNUHwKPeCPsj5gwhs/SIMWUpl4uvDOQtXemM/kza0Kk RkBOpBEOTAfTwQRm7nEsC9rQY52hZ6FiWl4lzaWR121POUPEaamteeaF6iOKpBedwCXk 7h5te7Q2Jsgq0jM8efYZcEiKoG4TlxXThogIVreNAu5LkTijGzhpw/LOIARRRGrkpJ3+ UZySwJgBOEZ4dZq8wLitUMAnWoKQXH0Q4VQhPGxeCaxWu2HrOTuyWPoJ++42tafADG8z M2nd57OBIJ70jhP/87rc18jzimTTv45bPwJ1HewCIG/BMZ0ny57Eh5sJbWZXGf2nWSo5 w4rQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ggnDE40oA0h2/cA2reKHlypvOeV8FnIoF6TIRY2rDnM=; b=UQTctC5lGo3bqx0I0G3/mgWKrSbAs8T9karAsGlWmL+fbixWdSnL7kL15/1gDHJ0n9 HPxgBfssv07b/0hdPBiJrCdSQBvSJLf5tCjow1quJuAB4Zhy1V5CqsWAUkACj5rMvi5y 0ThfKY3NPg53hSCo+5fd/tYVlIMsfaKvqUKpndeFuiBX8oRhFVn6qzkE41L7TG0KBtye lfcg8zYcxzJ6dSklXdK6T4PsiWRpEmN58OwYSbb0S6CLD42rytldkjQCBKqVUvBvdSDh wjM9KhRU+5uwIl5+rkPoMQgIN+SQOH1l8RE/79aOVv5hF9bQ+DMuvQhWcVDtgSiEeZEX wSEQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531XQlPJzlLHgATgueGmiXachPKkwBq6g0556kezyXM8i1YS+dd9 6vViWJxG75WROAMv05oep0SVzuPyugEMDpnqGjE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzH1U2ZpqIDeVVEtS9Q5SbSg0H14VKOCtjC5dK0Y0sOHbRhDj+m2rm43ad7btDcJ9sinR+jiOCVVVMbYllIdGA= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:bd8e:: with SMTP id z14mr24888253pjr.231.1628028277557; Tue, 03 Aug 2021 15:04:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210803123921.2374485-1-kuba@kernel.org> <20210803141839.79e99e23@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <20210803145124.71a8aab4@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> In-Reply-To: <20210803145124.71a8aab4@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> From: Cong Wang Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 15:04:26 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] Revert "netdevsim: Add multi-queue support" To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: David Miller , Linux Kernel Network Developers , "Cong Wang ." , Peilin Ye Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 2:51 PM Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > 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: > > > > On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 5:39 AM Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > > Since when netdevsim is *only* for upstream tests? > > > > > > Since it was created. > > > > Why it was created only for upstream? IOW, what's wrong with > > using it only for non-upstream tests? > > > > 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. > > From 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). So, nothing special for netdevsim? This seems applicable to all code, not just netdevsim code. > > 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. Sure. Our test is not any special, sch_mq is in upstream, only sch_mq tests are not yet. Peilin will send out sch_mq tests very soon. > > > > > Even if so, where is this documented? And why not just point it > > > > out when reviewing it instead of silently waiting for weeks? > > > > > > I was AFK for the last two weeks. > > > > How about documenting it in netdev-FAQ (or literally any doc)? > > This would save everyone's time. > > Fair, I'll send a patch. Great! Really appreciate it. > > > > > It is clearly not dead. We internally used it for testing sch_mq, > > > > this is clearly stated in the git log. > > > > > > Please contribute those tests upstream or keep any test harness > > > they require where such test are, out of tree. > > > > Peilin will add tc-testing for sch_mq which requires this netdevsim > > feature. > > > > > > > > > How did you draw such a conclusion without talking to authors? > > > > > > There is no upstream test using this code, and I did CC you, didn't I? > > > > There are downstream tests, which are mentioned in changelog. > > > > 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 dead. > > Once again, I don't see any reason why you only treat netdevsim differently. > > ;) > > I hope the first part of this response scheds some light. > > > > > But this does remind me of using netdevsim for tc-testing. > > > > > > Please bring the code back as part of the series adding upstream tests. > > > > 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 :) Many net/*/ code can be gone. Maybe start with net/netrom/? ;) Thanks.