From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE43F437847; Mon, 10 Aug 2026 18:13:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786385605; cv=none; b=szM80+46llpN9nhCkRNHIgEsatBdCyNGS5X5miwroQrTBwkMwS26H6sC0uYSMxj0EMlZi85esvjpgaIIEqoeIKq214mZHYWDBTnt6FBtfjNJVhZeIk3f5s35utdvOHe7N8MKAFZdnsg874nuvWDzMpPX51LiSgWq7l2xyJstZDA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786385605; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5ya32EeiX/6ALIqvU9TY2YYC5n096KOB3wJrQ287IQo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=MepHQwHooeDymeLWtGDlV2MU1CQNi4Z0OrTAqpcLRTmLta3ixCmxTUXko/HMTRHVhnzkK7BFNM+RzqQY2ELgWQ7XFXacFj5qKiGOCsObnsPpH/WaxIs8TeCWP92ifjq9Y+ygfZT/9F0Y74abstEjdyC9ukvajjLidyBOJQVTNRg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=SESZTbiL; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="SESZTbiL" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4AD841F00A3A; Mon, 10 Aug 2026 18:13:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1786385603; bh=LIl/DIAXKD2O5Z+P4VyBIwLQq43iQSjULudMrBjU0ak=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=SESZTbiLYuOb3qt5M/ePfIeGEYF9QnlqcyuS+Kosl8lXPs4CLM0evu5y7tzedAAoc Huq6rSEGXiI7E+Em1QHEngCozJp2PsPi5GYaqNeS/PkFuDmXtNmS9pXO7VTHHxKML8 X8y3TRc1iaUssYwG5iTmjlIyOjdGdehEEvsSqvlxdk4iTWzJFPA8t7FR763fEKv3DU Y8E8T3STiVy445rWE2R+ukDb5codpt0yjxyQNsuuCkut0D/ndkt4xB+mSNy6g61TDN cD5ZhNVxOEEB7c8rmtGjG1Kx+dR8rW+FTgZRskyF4Z0vMEssNeSMXb/VGLsG87fxao tMSNNM9vmSr7w== Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2026 11:13:22 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Petr Machata Cc: , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] selftests: drv-net: hide the devlink port_split test Message-ID: <20260810111322.20341a39@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <87jypy9qy7.fsf@pmachata.org> References: <20260808164843.2475226-1-kuba@kernel.org> <87jypy9qy7.fsf@pmachata.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 13:04:48 +0200 Petr Machata wrote: > > The devlink port_split test has limited applicability. > > NICs (as opposed to switches) require at least a re-probe > > to apply the split configuration. > > Interesting, apparently some NICs require reboot after devlink port > split. Hmm, should I just move the test to drivers/mlxsw? It's not really mlxsw specific in any way :S The cmode + NETIF compatibility would be my long term preference. > > On top of that the test is not compatible with our driver env, > > it just splits all ports on the system, not only what NETIF > > points at. > > > > Long term we may want to add some indication in devlink whether > > the port splitting is runtime (cmode of sorts), and fix the > > test to follow driver env. But since no (known) NIC driver can > > support runtime anyway let's just hide the test from the selftest > > framework by moving it to extra files. > > Sure, go for it. > > > Having this test randomly break unrelated NICs within the DUT > > makes people implement allow-lists for ksft, which then means > > their setups don't run new tests. > > So I'm fine with the patch, but I don't buy this argument. People > presumably understand that allow-listing implies that only the, well, > allowed tests will be run. One note here - that's a fine position to take for downstream CIs. But upstream / in NIPA we want to test the drivers as much as we want to test the tests. It's _very_ useful during review to see how well the test works across the runners before merging. So allowlists are explicitly a no-no for NIPA reporting. > Presumably there was a history of new stuff > blowing up, or gradual enablement or whatever, otherwise why not just > blacklist the one problematic one? I.e. don't blame the existence of > allow-lists on devlink_port_split. IIRC Intel devs mentioned port split as problematic explicitly. I also had issues with it in NIPA. But fair point, maybe once the auto-neg / link config tests appear upstream this will be more prevalent problem. For now devlink port split is the only one.. let's just squirrel it away. > Reviewed-by: Petr Machata Thanks! I may need to respin and use PROGS_EXTENDED as AI suggests.