On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 10:58:58AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 07:12:03 -0700 Breno Leitao wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 04:16:25PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 13:17:27 -0700 Breno Leitao wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 06:29:58PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 13:47:24 -0700 Calvin Owens wrote: > > > > > > I wonder if there might be a demon lurking in bonding+netpoll that > > > > > > this > > > > > > was papering over? Not a reason not to fix the leaks IMO, I'm just > > > > > > curious, I don't want to spend time on it if you already did :) > > > > > > > > > > +1, I also feel like it'd be good to have some bonding tests in place > > > > > when we're removing a hack added specifically for bonding. > > > > > > > > Do you prefer to have a separated bonding selftest, or, is it better to > > > > add some bond operations in the torture selftest? > > > > > > Normal test is preferable, given the flakiness rate and patch volume > > > I'm a bit scared of randomized testing as part of CI. > > > > Ok, I will create a selftest to cover the netpoll part of bonding, as > > soon as my understanding is good enough. I don't think it will be quick, > > but, it is on my hi-pri todo list. > > > > Do you want to have the selftest done before merging this patch, or, can > > they go in parallel? > > I said "it'd be good to have some bonding tests in place when we're > removing a hack added specifically for bonding." > "In place" means part of CI when we're merging this fix. > Please read emails more carefully.
Apologies for the misunderstanding, It was unclear that the bonding selftest should come before the fix. Thanks for the clarification. I am planning to create a selftest similar to the original reported to cause the issue[1], where I create a bond device with two netdevsim, and bind netconsole to it. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/96b940137a50e5c387687bb4f57de8b0435a653f.1404857349.git.de...@googlers.com/
