Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/6] tcp: add some RTO MIN and DELACK MAX {bpf_}set/getsockopt supports

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 7:50 AM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 7:44 PM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 3/11/25 11:39 AM, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> > > On 3/11/25 4:07 AM, Jason Xing wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 10:26 AM <bot+bpf-ci@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Dear patch submitter,
> > >>>
> > >>> CI has tested the following submission:
> > >>> Status:     FAILURE
> > >>> Name:       [bpf-next,v2,0/6] tcp: add some RTO MIN and DELACK MAX {bpf_}set/
> > >>> getsockopt supports
> > >>> Patchwork:  https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?
> > >>> series=942617&state=*
> > >>> Matrix:     https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/13784214269
> > >>>
> > >>> Failed jobs:
> > >>> test_progs-aarch64-gcc: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/
> > >>> runs/13784214269/job/38548852334
> > >>> test_progs_no_alu32-aarch64-gcc: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/
> > >>> actions/runs/13784214269/job/38548853075
> > >>> test_progs-s390x-gcc: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/
> > >>> runs/13784214269/job/38548829871
> > >>> test_progs_no_alu32-s390x-gcc: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/
> > >>> runs/13784214269/job/38548830246
> > >>
> > >> I see https://netdev.bots.linux.dev/static/nipa/942617/apply/desc that
> > >
> > > It cannot apply, so it applied to bpf-next/net.
> > >
> > > I just confirmed by first checking this:
> > > https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/pulls
> > >
> > > then find your patches and figure out bpf-net_base:
> > > https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/pull/8649
> > >
> > >> says the patch can not be applied. Could it be possible that CI
> > >> applied it on the wrong branch? I targeted the net branch.
> > >>
> > >> I have no clue this series is affecting the following tests
> > >
> > > The test is changing the exact same test setget_sockopt and it failed, so it
> > > should be suspicious enough to look at the details of the bpf CI report.
> > >
> > > The report said it failed in aarch64 and s390 but x86 seems to be fine.
> > > When the test failed, it pretty much failed on all tests. It looks like some of
> > > the new set/getsockopt checks failed in these two archs. A blind guess is the
> > > jiffies part.
> >
> > and forgot to mention that you can run bpf CI before posting. This may be easier
> > to test other archs. Take a look at Documentation/bpf/bpf_devel_QA.rst. The
> > section "How do I run BPF CI on my changes before sending them out for review?"
>
> Thanks for the pointer.
>
> Let me try one patch by one patch. Having checked the series itself, I
> still have no clue. You said jiffies part. What is that? Could you
> please point out a file name or configuration so that I can follow you
> and then do some tests?

Oh, I realized that. Maybe I need to adjust the test and expected
value in the selftests to make it compatible with different HZ values
in those arch configs.

Thanks,
Jason





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux