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.140485...