On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 6:19 PM Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Oct 2026 08:41:43 -0700 Mina Almasry wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2026 at 1:23 PM Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 20 Oct 2026 23:17:34 -0700 Mina Almasry wrote: > > > > But on the other hand the test coverage is nice, and maybe one day if > > > > we add enough devmem support in netdevsim we'll be able to fuzz the > > > > data path or something. Is there a way to get the best of both worlds? > > > > Like put a comment on top of netdevsim that this is test simulator > > > > device and any missing functionality and/or bugs in it should be > > > > medium criticality max or something? Or is it too much trouble and I > > > > should drop the netdevsim support and tests? > > > > > > I already strip Fixes tags and apply the patches to net-next. > > > But it's still a burden. If you're signing up to fix the issues / > > > review the slop we can try. > > > > I'm more than happy to help but I'm not sure what you have > > specifically in mind. What I was going to do is put a comment/readme > > in drivers/net/netdevsim with a note to sashiko and LLMs, "this is a > > netdev simulator, used for testing; do not call out missing or > > incomplete functionality as bugs." And then hope that the LLMs and > > sashiko pick the directive. If not, I can tell patch submitters to > > ignore sashiko code review bug findings in netdevsim. Is that > > sufficient, or do you need something else from me? > > No, the fact that it's a test harness only impacts whether fixes > got to net & stable, not whether bugs need to be fixed.
Ack, I meant like if the bots start to consider missing/incomplete functionality as 'bugs' when it's actually missing from netdevsim on purpose because we don't need it for testing. > I was expecting you to keep an eye on the list and review any fixes > that come, basically. > OK, I'll add netdevsim to my email filters for patches to review and see how it goes. -- Thanks, Mina
