On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 12:47:16PM -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > Joe Damato wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 09:57:48AM -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > > Joe Damato wrote: [...] > > > > > > Nice test. > > > > > > Busy polling does not affect data integrity. Is the goal of this test > > > mainly to get coverage, maybe observe if the process would stall > > > indefinitely? > > > > Just to get coverage and make sure data makes it from point A to > > point B intact despite suspend being enabled. > > > > The last paragraph of the commit message highlights that netdevsim > > functionality is limited, so the test uses what is available. It can > > be extended in the future, when netdevsim supports more > > functionality. > > > > Paolo wanted a test and this is the best test we can provide given > > the limitations of the testing environment. > > > > > > netdevsim was chosen instead of veth due to netdevsim's support for > > > > netdev-genl. > > > > > > > > For now, this test uses the functionality that netdevsim provides. In the > > > > future, perhaps netdevsim can be extended to emulate device IRQs to more > > > > thoroughly test all pre-existing kernel options (like defer_hard_irqs) > > > > and suspend. > > > > [...] > > > > The rest of the feedback below seems pretty minor; I don't think > > it's worth spinning a v9 and re-sending just for this. > > > > If anything this can be handled with a clean up commit in the > > future. > > FWIW no objections from me. > > > Jakub: please let me know if you prefer to see a v9 for this? Since we passed the 24hr mark and the series hasn't been merged yet, I've sent a v9 just now that addresses the feedback you provided.
