Re: [PATCH net-next] selftests: drv-net: hide the devlink port_split test

Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.netdev,org.kernel.vger.linux-kselftest
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 13:04:48 +0200 Petr Machata wrote:
> > The devlink port_split test has limited applicability.
> > NICs (as opposed to switches) require at least a re-probe
> > to apply the split configuration.  
> 
> Interesting, apparently some NICs require reboot after devlink port
> split. Hmm, should I just move the test to drivers/mlxsw?

It's not really mlxsw specific in any way :S
The cmode + NETIF compatibility would be my long term preference.

> > On top of that the test is not compatible with our driver env,
> > it just splits all ports on the system, not only what NETIF
> > points at.
> >
> > Long term we may want to add some indication in devlink whether
> > the port splitting is runtime (cmode of sorts), and fix the
> > test to follow driver env. But since no (known) NIC driver can
> > support runtime anyway let's just hide the test from the selftest
> > framework by moving it to extra files.  
> 
> Sure, go for it.
> 
> > Having this test randomly break unrelated NICs within the DUT
> > makes people implement allow-lists for ksft, which then means
> > their setups don't run new tests.  
> 
> So I'm fine with the patch, but I don't buy this argument. People
> presumably understand that allow-listing implies that only the, well,
> allowed tests will be run.

One note here - that's a fine position to take for downstream CIs.
But upstream / in NIPA we want to test the drivers as much as we want
to test the tests. It's _very_ useful during review to see how well 
the test works across the runners before merging. So allowlists are
explicitly a no-no for NIPA reporting.

> Presumably there was a history of new stuff
> blowing up, or gradual enablement or whatever, otherwise why not just
> blacklist the one problematic one? I.e. don't blame the existence of
> allow-lists on devlink_port_split.

IIRC Intel devs mentioned port split as problematic explicitly.
I also had issues with it in NIPA.

But fair point, maybe once the auto-neg / link config tests appear
upstream this will be more prevalent problem. For now devlink port
split is the only one.. let's just squirrel it away.

> Reviewed-by: Petr Machata <[email protected]>

Thanks! I may need to respin and use PROGS_EXTENDED as AI suggests.
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.