On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:41:47 -0700 Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > > > 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.
My recollection was basically that the test is not safe to run over SSH (without tmux). Hence the link down concern. If we say soft reset that'd cover 95% of the tests so it's not very useful. The existing doc and README already document the link down AFAICT.
