From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-b1-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-b1-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.144]) (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 3AAC32D9EE3; Tue, 4 Nov 2025 11:04:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.144 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762254300; cv=none; b=UR7pM8rn53KFTi4m7YZCV6EGRBicWKzLs1emq56Qm+fslCruVioO4QeI4G6J7A9xIXpJCYNIxXykgIWWnMeij707kuQ2yig7Is17b3fzywdgHsSJ6kPBAwUGwKvpqksYdey75AJyxVlv6yqXF/2IBw8we1/vmP25JBTNKJqgUqE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762254300; c=relaxed/simple; bh=mnnjEoZG7SCrvo/98JBq1+J/edDSNk2PsJilNdtTjGA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=oWnat3x05P4TX05PuwWyo08RE0hRO6Bi5zFPXw9hmUxEGkD5b2PBRi1C9q2ZuCjmSbckawaepgnscfbPWBm53sgpyVGqtTY71MQK5hpnM1/Gh5+zBDJyLe+bFgjTmnGVyii9zSDrYwUxaNnuuHBk+ltkNd18wZleNZc4XK4dH94= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=queasysnail.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=queasysnail.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=queasysnail.net header.i=@queasysnail.net header.b=u9bHmOJJ; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=zJBvIECz; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.144 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=queasysnail.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=queasysnail.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=queasysnail.net header.i=@queasysnail.net header.b="u9bHmOJJ"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="zJBvIECz" Received: from phl-compute-02.internal (phl-compute-02.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailfout.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E99D81D004E5; Tue, 4 Nov 2025 06:04:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from phl-mailfrontend-02 ([10.202.2.163]) by phl-compute-02.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 04 Nov 2025 06:04:56 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=queasysnail.net; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1762254295; x= 1762340695; bh=dAKnNYKCOZLWWlDSxnoE7+xMSmMtjXAvFcmPRzidAyU=; b=u 9bHmOJJjVL8bANBsqNriNlKUVhGbC1dBFRf1qPSxVJwKWvlVqyqGO1MzMPemaQFx GdhSYtrP/TfpTPgDnYOX2qfNy32i/JZjFwThzevkyUq8s7WN2ukHr1eVbh65mKBb Q4lWsuDrAyfvffuhgnm+WUhnRkt9Iw9+xMhR59xBtGSLP8ix5emur3nMSAoudFaL dkoPK8V71Cee9/1X9HWDRjibRqJ4Q4rwsA97JZOt6QtshrVx260t08pkB7QvQtnF N8reNBMilVtElrW2AL/9l9MW/4gO4xC+YHqAiDFoges6l0Ih6rolbAhlYKHB2Ujo u89A1cn258uQaKFxpBcAA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1762254295; x=1762340695; bh=dAKnNYKCOZLWWlDSxnoE7+xMSmMtjXAvFcm PRzidAyU=; b=zJBvIECzJop+kODsr9Iklplxx9kuhepW8FAgWBGk17jLyTEY6gi cQlsAnSNHIE5vN++/UItVoU8A/fPadksbqInjpra02jizRZqIUHr4Git3YKSuRWH MaO6jn/IvAjyVdt2gWIqq4ZKgZ6w4h3rcEI2ogsn57vNTzcNqM0qgqAb4Uyhvkcg 6zKTzJlhhKmqBU9MhIBsE4dE6DhTSUxz45b4oQVbMT3DGiqJzoG0uI7ewdK5PGmv 2xOnfVXBi1YQqi8rCs1Yt1npFHfOBKoq4AGOMhHOIra4AxoMGkWBdtgwo6GEYUxz C/PWFFEZ1gZ0NoUnUYAaeidgaX+I6gsBWJw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtdeggddukedtkeegucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceu rghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujf gurhepfffhvfevuffkfhggtggujgesthdtredttddtjeenucfhrhhomhepufgrsghrihhn rgcuffhusghrohgtrgcuoehsugesqhhuvggrshihshhnrghilhdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrf grthhtvghrnhepuefhhfffgfffhfefueeiudegtdefhfekgeetheegheeifffguedvueff fefgudffnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomh epshgusehquhgvrghshihsnhgrihhlrdhnvghtpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopedufedpmhho uggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepkhhusggrsehkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghdprh gtphhtthhopeifrghnghhlihgrnhhgjeegsehhuhgrfigvihdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthho pegrnhgurhgvfieslhhunhhnrdgthhdprhgtphhtthhopegurghvvghmsegurghvvghmlh hofhhtrdhnvghtpdhrtghpthhtohepvgguuhhmrgiivghtsehgohhoghhlvgdrtghomhdp rhgtphhtthhopehprggsvghnihesrhgvughhrghtrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepshhhuh grhheskhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohephhhorhhmsheskhgvrhhnvghlrdho rhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepnhgvthguvghvsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i934648bf:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 4 Nov 2025 06:04:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2025 12:04:52 +0100 From: Sabrina Dubroca To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: Wang Liang , andrew@lunn.ch, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, shuah@kernel.org, horms@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yuehaibing@huawei.com, zhangchangzhong@huawei.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net] selftests: netdevsim: Fix ethtool-features.sh fail Message-ID: References: <20251030032203.442961-1-wangliang74@huawei.com> <20251030170217.43e544ad@kernel.org> <20251103160133.31c856a4@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20251103160133.31c856a4@kernel.org> 2025-11-03, 16:01:33 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Mon, 3 Nov 2025 11:13:08 +0100 Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > > 2025-10-30, 17:02:17 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > On Fri, 31 Oct 2025 00:13:59 +0100 Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > > > > I guess it's improving the situation, but I've got a system with an > > > > ethtool that accepts the --json argument, but silently ignores it for > > > > -k (ie `ethtool --json -k $DEV` succeeds but doesn't produce a json > > > > output), which will still cause the test to fail later. > > > > > > And --json was added to -k in Jan 2022, that's pretty long ago. > > > I'm not sure we need this aspect of the patch at all.. > > > > Ok. Then maybe a silly idea: for the tests that currently have some > > form of "$TOOL is too old" check, do we want to remove those after a > > while? If so, how long after the feature was introduced in $TOOL? > > > > Or should we leave them, but not accept new checks to exclude > > really-old versions of tools? Do we need to document the cut-off ("we > > don't support tool versions older than 2 years for networking > > selftests" [or similar]) somewhere in Documentation/ ? > > FWIW my current thinking is to prioritize test development and kernel > needs over the ability to run ksft on random old set of tools and have > clean skips. IOW avoid complicating writing tests by making the author > also responsible for testing versions of all tools. I see. I liked Andrew's idea ("embed the date the requirement was added into the test"), but it goes completely in the opposite direction. Figuring out why exactly a test failed in case of an old tool (unexpected output passed to some pipe/parsing, exit with a non-zero code, maybe other issues) is not always obvious. So without version checks on the tools, I think we have to assume that the test requires the latest version of all tools it calls (or at least a very recent one). Which I guess is reasonable for upstream kernel development. > The list of tools which need to be updated or installed for all > networking tests to pass is rather long. My uneducated guess > is all these one off SKIP patches don't amount to much. Here for > example author is fixing one test, I'm pretty sure that far more > tests depend on -k --json. A quick grep found only a few more (in python scripts under drivers/net) for -k. But (also from a quick grep) many tests seem to use jq without checking that the command is present. So I guess you would lean toward not accepting any such patch, not requiring new tests to have SKIP checks, but leaving any existing checks in? (and I suspect removing all the existing ones wouldn't actually reduce the flow of "add check for too old $tool" patches, so it probably doesn't make sense to do that) -- Sabrina