From 8e235bc43326f47adfd77d926c7d6ad39077569a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jakub Kicinski Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2026 07:16:46 -0800 Subject: docs: netdev: refine netdevsim testing guidance The library to create tests for both NIC HW and netdevsim has existed for almost a year. netdevsim-only tests we get increasingly feel like a waste, we should try to write tests that work both on netdevsim and real HW. Refine the guidance accordingly. Reviewed-by: Simon Horman Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260304151647.2770466-1-kuba@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski --- Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst | 10 ++++++++-- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'Documentation/process') diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst index 6bce4507d5d3..3aa13bc2405d 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst @@ -479,8 +479,14 @@ netdevsim ``netdevsim`` is a test driver which can be used to exercise driver configuration APIs without requiring capable hardware. -Mock-ups and tests based on ``netdevsim`` are strongly encouraged when -adding new APIs, but ``netdevsim`` in itself is **not** considered +Mock-ups and tests based on ``netdevsim`` are encouraged when +adding new APIs with complex logic in the stack. The tests should +be written so that they can run both against ``netdevsim`` and a real +device (see ``tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/README.rst``). +``netdevsim``-only tests should focus on testing corner cases +and failure paths in the core which are hard to exercise with a real driver. + +``netdevsim`` in itself is **not** considered a use case/user. You must also implement the new APIs in a real driver. We give no guarantees that ``netdevsim`` won't change in the future -- cgit v1.3.1 From bd5c24e4001d39136e1084fc47335c93e4ebbb0d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jakub Kicinski Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 10:53:34 -0700 Subject: docs: netdev: improve wording of reviewer guidance Reword the reviewer guidance based on behavior we see on the list. Steer folks: - towards sending tags - away from process issues. Reviewed-by: Joe Damato Reviewed-by: Nicolai Buchwitz Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260406175334.3153451-1-kuba@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski --- Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst | 8 +++++--- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) (limited to 'Documentation/process') diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst index 3aa13bc2405d..bda93b459a05 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst @@ -551,10 +551,12 @@ helpful tips please see :ref:`development_advancedtopics_reviews`. It's safe to assume that netdev maintainers know the community and the level of expertise of the reviewers. The reviewers should not be concerned about -their comments impeding or derailing the patch flow. +their comments impeding or derailing the patch flow. A Reviewed-by tag +is understood to mean "I have reviewed this code to the best of my ability" +rather than "I can attest this code is correct". -Less experienced reviewers are highly encouraged to do more in-depth -review of submissions and not focus exclusively on trivial or subjective +Reviewers are highly encouraged to do more in-depth review of submissions +and not focus exclusively on process issues, trivial or subjective matters like code formatting, tags etc. Testimonials / feedback -- cgit v1.3.1