On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 5:12 AM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Oh, I got it, thanks!
