linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next V10 2/6] selftest: netdevsim: Add devlink rate tc-bw test

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <de344976-6117-478f-987c-3d24be590399@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 00:05:32 +0300
From: Carolina Jubran <cjubran@...dia.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
 Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>, Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>,
 Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>, Donald Hunter
 <donald.hunter@...il.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
 Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...dia.com>,
 Mark Bloch <mbloch@...dia.com>, Cosmin Ratiu <cratiu@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V10 2/6] selftest: netdevsim: Add devlink rate
 tc-bw test

On 21/05/2025 1:59, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2025 21:38:03 +0300 Tariq Toukan wrote:
>> Test verifies that netdevsim correctly implements devlink ops callbacks
>> that set tc-bw on leaf or node rate object.
> 
> Please add a test that can actually validate a NIC HW.
> The test probably needs to be in Python to use a remote endpoint,
> and should live under tools/testing/../drivers/net/hw
> 
> We had a long conversation about what we expect from the API
> vs how your HW works. One of the test cases should confirm
> the expected behavior, IOW fail on mlx5. Which is fine,
> unlikely that any NIC will have 100% compliance. But at
> least we will be documenting the expectations.

Working on this. Let me know if the netdevsim selftest should stay 
alongside the hardware tests, or be removed.

Thanks!