netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 11/12] selftests: ncdevmem: Move ncdevmem under drivers/net/hw

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: <CAHS8izOvRgAoJVH28wj3+7QF2kHPON71vsHOp-1NtBxDnugFHw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 12:16:19 -0700
From: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
To: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com>
Cc: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, 
	edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 11/12] selftests: ncdevmem: Move ncdevmem
 under drivers/net/hw

On Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at 10:26 AM Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/03, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 10:18 AM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is where all the tests that depend on the HW functionality live in
> > > and this is where the automated test is gonna be added in the next
> > > patch.
> > >
> >
> > Tbh I don't like this very much. I wanted to take ncdevmem in the
> > opposite direction: to make at least the control path tests runnable
> > on netdevsim or something like that and have it not require any HW
> > support at all.
> >
> > But I see in the cover letter that Jakub himself asked for the move,
> > so if there is some strong reason to make this in hw, sure.
> >
> > Does it being under HW preclude future improvements to making it a
> > non-HW dependent test?
>
> I'm moving it under drivers/net/hw only because I want ncdevmem to end
> up as a TEST_GEN_FILES dependency (drivers/net/hw is the directory
> that the vendors will eventually run against their HW so this is
> where the HW-dependent tests are gonna stay for now).

Ah, OK. Makes sense then.

Reviewed-by: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>

Thanks!

-- 
Thanks,
Mina