On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 14:04:09 -0400 Aaron Conole wrote: > > I also added the OvS tests themselves, and those are not passing, yet: > > https://netdev.bots.linux.dev/contest.html?test=openvswitch-sh > > Could you take a look and LMK if these are likely env issues or > > something bad in the test itself? > > I saw that. I was looking for a place in the nipa repository where I > could submit a small fix, because I noticed in the stdout: > > make -C tools/testing/selftests TARGETS="net/openvswitch" > TEST_PROGS=openvvswitch.sh TEST_GEN_PROGS="" run_tests > > and I think the TEST_PROGS=openvvswitch.sh is misspelled (but it seems > to not matter too much for the run_test target). :o that's a weird bug, whatever is echoing back the input from the VMs stdin to stdout is duplicating 74th character?! but as you say looks like the VM gets the right input, it's just the echo. > From what I understand, there are two things causing it to be flaky. > First, the module detection is a bit flaky (and that's why it results is > some 'skip' reports). Additionally, the connection oriented tests > include negative cases and those hit timeouts. The default is to > declare failure after 45s. That can be seen in: > > https://netdev-3.bots.linux.dev/vmksft-net/results/659601/91-openvswitch-sh/stdout > ... > # timeout set to 45 > ... > # TEST: nat_connect_v4 [START] > # Terminated > # Terminated > > This is showing that the timeout is too short. > > I have patches ready for these issues, but I didn't know if you would > like me to submit config config meaning make OvS built in? We have a number of tests using module auto-loading, I don't think there were major issues with it. (well, the rebuilding of modules is a bit questionable with vng, but we do 'make mrproper' between each build to work around that). > and settings files to go under net/openvswitch, > or if you would prefer to see the openvswitch.sh script, and > ovs-dpctl.py utilities move out of their net/openvswitch/ directory. If > the latter, I can submit patches quickly with config and settings (and a > small change to the script itself) that addresses these. If you'd > prefer the former (moving around the files), I'll need to spend some > additional time modifying pmtu and doing a larger test. I don't have a > strong opinion on either approach. Since we talked about it a while back I gave in and implemented support for combining multiple targets in a single runner. So it doesn't matter any more (barring bugs in NIPA), up to you.
