On 07/24, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:04:24 -0700 Bobby Eshleman wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 11:09:03AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 15:55:06 -0700 Bobby Eshleman wrote: > > > > +@ksft_disruptive > > > > +def check_rx_large_niov(cfg) -> None: > > > > + """Run the devmem RX test with rx-buf-size = 16 KiB.""" > > > > + run_rx_large_niov(cfg) > > > > > > Any idea why the devmem tests sprinkle disruptive everywhere? > > > Disruptive means we take the link down, I don't think this test > > > does that. > > > > Talked to Stan and he mentioned the original idea was not necessarily > > just for link down, but any test that could be considered disruptive to > > other tests, with the idea to eventually introduce some scheduling > > (postpone disruptive until the end). > > Perhaps have such conversations on the list? IDK what Stan has in mind.
I don't have much to add so I didn't post on the list. In my mind, disruptive started as "anything that can lead to a soft reset". But since the sockets tend to survive these well, I do agree that your definition of "link goes down" is a better fit.
