netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 09/12] selftests: ncdevmem: Remove hard-coded queue numbers

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHS8izOd1eGzBUo-Mj-Cdp+MLbzNVxWBZ0vHu3iySNxMocufOA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 01:49:19 +0300
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 v3 09/12] selftests: ncdevmem: Remove hard-coded
 queue numbers

On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 5:47 PM Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/12, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 10:13 AM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me> wrote:
> > >
> > > Use single last queue of the device and probe it dynamically.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry I thought agreed that multi-queue binding test coverage is important.
> >
> > Can you please leave the default of num_queues to be 8 queues, or
> > rxq_num / 2? You can override num_queues to 1 in your test invocations
> > if you want. I would like by default an unaware tester that doesn't
> > set num_queues explicitly to get multi-queue test coverage.
>
> I might have misunderstood the agreement :-) I though you were ok with
> the following arrangement:
>
> 1. use num_queues / 2 in the selftest mode to make sure binding to multiple
>    queues works (and this gets exercised from the python kselftest)
> 2. use single queue for the actual data path test (since we are
>    installing single flow steering rule, having multiple queues here is
>    confusing)
>
> The num_queues / 2 part is here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20241009171252.2328284-11-sdf@fomichev.me/
>
> Anything I'm missing?

Sorry, I indeed missed that this is reworked in patch 10/12. Squashing
the patches could be OK, because the changes to num_queues here are
essentially reworked in the next patch, but this is also fine.

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

-- 
Thanks,
Mina