linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next RFC] selftests: net: add netpoll basic functionality 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: <aEwwqhrx848hSh4k@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 07:07:38 -0700
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
	ast@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC] selftests: net: add netpoll basic
 functionality test

On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 09:43:35AM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> Breno Leitao wrote:

> > > > +def check_traffic_flowing(cfg: NetDrvEpEnv, netdevnl: NetdevFamily) -> int:
> > > > +    """Check if traffic is flowing on the interface"""
> > > > +    stat1 = get_stats(cfg, netdevnl)
> > > > +    time.sleep(1)
> > > 
> > > Can the same be learned with sufficient precision when sleeping
> > > for only 100 msec? As tests are added, it's worth trying to keep
> > > their runtime short.
> > 
> > 100%. In fact, I don't need to wait for 1 seconds. In fact, we don't
> > even need to check for traffic flowing after the traffic started. I've
> > just added it to help me do develop the test.
> > 
> > We can either reduce it to 100ms or just remove it from the loop,
> > without prejudice to the test itself. Maybe reducing it to 100 ms might
> > help someone else that might debug this in the future, while just
> > slowing down ITERATIONS * 0.1 seconds !?
> 
> That makes sense. Or only keep it in DEBUG mode?

Even better, I will move it to DEBUG mode.

Thanks!