On 2/19/25 8:33 AM, Daniel Xu wrote:
Hi Jason,
On 2/19/25 12:44 AM, Jason Xing wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 4:27 PM <bot+bpf-ci@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear patch submitter,
CI has tested the following submission:
Status: FAILURE
Name: [bpf-next,v3,0/2] bpf: support setting max RTO for bpf_setsockopt
Patchwork: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=935463&state=*
Matrix: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/13408235954
Failed jobs:
build-aarch64-gcc: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/13408235954/job/37452248960
build-s390x-gcc: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/13408235954/job/37452248633
build-x86_64-gcc: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/13408235954/job/37452249287
build-x86_64-llvm-17: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/13408235954/job/37452250339
build-x86_64-llvm-17-O2: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/13408235954/job/37452250688
build-x86_64-llvm-18: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/13408235954/job/37452251018
build-x86_64-llvm-18-O2: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/13408235954/job/37452251311
Please note: this email is coming from an unmonitored mailbox. If you have
questions or feedback, please reach out to the Meta Kernel CI team at
kernel-ci@xxxxxxxx.
I think the only diff I made is that I removed the change in
tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h from V2.
diff --git a/tools/include/uapi/linux/tcp.h b/tools/include/uapi/linux/tcp.h
index 13ceeb395eb8..7989e3f34a58 100644
--- a/tools/include/uapi/linux/tcp.h
+++ b/tools/include/uapi/linux/tcp.h
@@ -128,6 +128,7 @@ enum {
#define TCP_CM_INQ TCP_INQ
#define TCP_TX_DELAY 37 /* delay outgoing packets by XX usec */
+#define TCP_RTO_MAX_MS 44 /* max rto time in ms */
Last time everything was fine. I doubt it has something to do with the
failure :S
kernel should not need tools/include, so no.
But I tested it locally and could not reproduce it. Could it be caused
because of applying to a wrong branch? I'm afraid not, right?
Right, in v2, the patch 1 cannot be applied to bpf-next/master, so the bpf CI
retried with bpf-next/net. It is the current bpf CI setup.
That v2's patch 1 is removed in v3, so the v3 applied cleanly to bpf-next/master
and the bpf CI moved forward to test it.
I tested locally and I have applied v3 to bpf-next/net. Thanks.
May be the bpf CI can retry with bpf-next/net also there is kernel compilation
error.
