Re: [PATCH net-next] Documentation: networking: Add a test plan for ethtool pause validation

[Maxime Chevallier]

Hi,

On 5/28/26 01:25, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 2026 04:47:47 +0200 Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > It'd be great to hear from others but IMHO in the current form this is
> > > not suitable for Documentation/networking/ We can commit the "knowledge"
> > > part but enumerating the test cases seems odd for Documentation/.
> >
> > Sorry, not looked too deeply at the actual content yet.
> >
> > What i was thinking was a python file, which sphinx can ingest to
> > produce documentation, and place holders were code would be added to
> > implement the actual test during the next phase.
> >
> > This is how i've done testing in the past. I would be the evil one who
> > thought up the tests and described them in detail using sphinx markup
> > in a python test template file. After some review they got passed off
> > to a python developer for implementation. And when they got run and
> > failed, sometimes the feature developer, the test developer and myself
> > got together to figure who made the error.
> >
> > I'm not sure we even need sphinx. What i find important is that the
> > test is documented. What kAPI calls should be made with what
> > parameters. What results we are expected and why? So that when a test
> > fails, a developer has the information they need to fix their
> > code. The Why? is important, and often missing from the kernel tests.
>
> All makes sense. The question is primarily how we fit that into
> the existing project layout we have in the kernel :(
>
> The python tests can be hacked up to print the test case docstring
> before the failure.
>
> But I think for human and AI reviewer consumption it may be nice
> to keep the condensed knowledge / common mistakes in Documentation/
> If we had the ability to exercise the submissions it'd be a different
> story test output would be a sufficient signal and/or could be fed into
> the review. But for AI making a guess at whether the submitted driver is
> correct purely from the driver source - knowledge is useful.

Ok so let's split this then, on one hand the knowledge part, and on the
other hand the test definitions.

From what I get from Andrew and you, the test definitions is lacking in 
details w.r.t the start conditions, the return code handling as well.

Having that in the doc is going to be too verbose, but in some python 
test that could really be great.

I'll use that as a basis for V2

Maxime