On Wed, 27 May 2026 04:47:47 +0200 Andrew Lunn wrote:

quoted

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.