Re: [PATCH net v2 0/4] Improve stability of big_tcp_tunnels.sh selftest

[Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@kernel.org>]

Hi Paolo,

On 25/08/2026 15:21, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On 8/22/26 2:03 PM, Alice Mikityanska wrote:
>> From: Alice Mikityanska <alice@isovalent.com>
>>
>> This series addresses flakiness of big_tcp_tunnels.sh discussed at:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/349c582c-73e3-468c-91cd-ad6cc3562700@app.fastmail.com/
>>
>> Lower the thresholds to avoid failures like this (number of packets
>> below the threshold):
>>
>> https://netdev-ctrl.bots.linux.dev/logview.html?f=/logs/vmksft/net-dbg/results/754376/28-big-tcp-tunnels-sh/stdout
>>
>> Tweak tcp_min_tso_segs and initcwnd to avoid failures like this (BIG TCP
>> doesn't kick in in slow configurations):
>>
>> https://netdev-ctrl.bots.linux.dev/logview.html?f=/logs/vmksft/net-dbg/results/751124/21-big-tcp-tunnels-sh/stdout
>>
>> v2 changes: Use $KSFT_MACHINE_SLOW instead of probing kernel config.
>>
>> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20260814194124.3102581-1-alice.kernel@fastmail.im/
> Any special reason for moving the target tree to 'net'? Selftests
> stability improvements should go via the net-next tree (without the
> fixes tag).

Sorry, I suggested to switch the target tree now that the selftest being
fixed here has landed there. TBH, I think it is unclear what to do in
this case: I agree that these modifications are not critical fixes, but
they do help other people validating changes, plus they don't introduce
regressions in the kernel code. If they go to net-next, that means other
CIs (and developers) will potentially see false positives for ~2 months.

Personnaly, I think such fixes should go to net, but that's fine if the
stable team don't backport them.

Cheers,
Matt
-- 
Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund.