From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out30-131.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-131.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.131]) (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 3D917352030; Fri, 29 May 2026 01:41:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.131 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780018886; cv=none; b=JXHrNTO4821HVQmM48B9Nkt1kTgqSZUFEmReQ2ZDPrhWBnKH51kejKZjKIx9k5S+2iZUdWFSpoaCJ5MCyVmZeB6I+qiywdUcdbH/Gv6EWukuKZcrTVdYKs31+zmoNypdBX3Eiet7T0G97uZLri8YlH8Dkq7fzA7d5oeSP/P5Ca8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780018886; c=relaxed/simple; bh=l3+/GwyXzi+v1tm1jRxV7wFdoWkpGW8Fm1hp6/jlbhU=; h=Message-ID:Subject:Date:From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To; b=D3VJPwt2Wc3JRWTf/p4FFQ3My4RuP8/9idIhP6Aa8up57mVSvwo540L5/60xD03iIlXLyBslIhSONtrnPNwHVaH5X+kXIXyiB5gUtoAuceAYUWsBoPpA8fxjzLJsI7svXrOo/xwGoy3lZ/5YUTFdCrKCByOmgn4wrKNMjujAcWk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b=agNs5LXg; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.131 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b="agNs5LXg" DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.alibaba.com; s=default; t=1780018880; h=Message-ID:Subject:Date:From:To; bh=FA4cOytTwwL6Znar0iXU2ZZbEQ4KKMxgHKUcmJ5WVEI=; b=agNs5LXgFrhPt/OOneLwTxNheoiapdI8PIwVVQE+xRuTWGsollaxxVcKnJhPWopbRk2a4/DNQIzFIk/tPNUQQ8nb7x08o+oUKyz9ccu9eNvyJGJ0aEaHjzij6fgtk7MUuHirGJW/Aq1ihEHTG5NGHCsJI0befWpwMXes6OZnNJw= X-Alimail-AntiSpam:AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R891e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;DS=||;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=maildocker-contentspam011083073210;MF=xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=18;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0X3nYIR3_1780018878; Received: from localhost(mailfrom:xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0X3nYIR3_1780018878 cluster:ay36) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Fri, 29 May 2026 09:41:19 +0800 Message-ID: <1780018791.8076131-1-xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] Documentation: networking: Add a test plan for ethtool pause validation Date: Fri, 29 May 2026 09:39:51 +0800 From: Xuan Zhuo To: Andrew Lunn Cc: Jakub Kicinski , davem@davemloft.net, Eric Dumazet , Paolo Abeni , Simon Horman , Russell King , Heiner Kallweit , Jonathan Corbet , Shuah Khan , Oleksij Rempel , Vladimir Oltean , Florian Fainelli , thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Maxime Chevallier References: <20260522175109.198059-1-maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com> <20260526172447.10ca4b9e@kernel.org> <5cb8e2b4-8eb6-4446-9b90-1cd4c7964cd9@lunn.ch> <81777bc8-b046-4c76-9f53-e33563b6ad62@lunn.ch> In-Reply-To: <81777bc8-b046-4c76-9f53-e33563b6ad62@lunn.ch> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Wed, 27 May 2026 14:08:30 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > As for the kAPI testing, I agree that the end goal is to get driver > > authors to get their flow control implementation right running this > > suite. > > > > But I don't really see how we can validate kAPI itself, as we're down at > > the ethnl level. > > All we can do is invoke the kAPI in different ways, and test we get > the expected results. When it fails, it is down to the developer to > figure out why, which layer. But they have a description of what the > test is doing, and why? In most reviews, all i need to explain is the > expected behaviour, and the second version is correct. So a test with > explanation text should sort cut that process. I don't think we need > any more. > > To some extent, we have an iterative process here. We have never done > testing of this, we don't know exactly what we need. If we get > feedback that a test is failing, but they cannot figure out why, we > might need to help out, and then extend either the text, or add finer > grain testing to narrow down the problem space. If we get a submission > which passes all the tests but review turns up problems, we might want > to ask the developers to extend the tests to catch the failure. > So I've been thinking lately: should we let AI generate and maintain these tests, including kselftest? This would give us a much richer and more comprehensive set of tests. Plus, each test could come with a complete explanation of its purpose and methodology. In short, much of the work we used to do manually can be offloaded to AI. This way, we can build a massive test suite and achieve much broader coverage. I'm actually trying this out right now. Thanks. > Andrew >