[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aCtNYJo01UfMOLfr@mini-arch>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 08:25:20 -0700
From: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com>
To: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
sdf@...ichev.me, ap420073@...il.com, praan@...gle.com,
shivajikant@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 4/9] net: devmem: ksft: remove ksft_disruptive
On 05/19, Mina Almasry wrote:
> As far as I can tell the ksft_disruptive here is unnecessary. These
> tests are largerly independent, and when one test fails, it's nice to
> know the results from all the other test cases.
We currently don't do anything special for disruptive tests. I'm assuming
anything that changes nic configuration is disruptive and was thinking of
an option to run all disruptive tests at the end of the run. But so far we
haven't had any problem with mixing disruptive and non-disruptive tests,
so it's all moot. I'd prefer to keep everything as is for now (or remove
this whole disruptive category).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists