Re: [Intel-wired-lan] sr-iov related bonding regression (two regressions in one report)

From: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
To: Linux Regressions <regressions@lists.linux.dev>,
	Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@canonical.com>
Cc: Anil Choudhary <anilchabba@gmail.com>,
	Linux Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Linux Intel Wired LAN <intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>,
	Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] sr-iov related bonding regression (two regressions in one report)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 20:04:08 +0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZVTByHx1HfYds_v-@archie.me> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0f97acf9-012d-4bb2-a766-0c2737e32b2c@leemhuis.info>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2069 bytes --]

On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 06:50:26AM +0100, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
> On 15.11.23 01:54, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> > Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> I come across LACP bonding regression on Bugzilla [1].
> 
> Side note: Stephen forwards some (all?) network regressions to the right
> people:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231113083746.5e02f8b0@hermes.local/
> 
> Would be best to check for that, no need to forward things twice, that
> just results in a mess.
> 
> >> The reporter
> >> (Cc'ed) has two regressions. The first is actual LACP bonding
> >> regression (but terse):
> >>
> >>> Till linkx kernel 6.5.7 it is working fine, but after upgrading to 6.6.1 ping stop working with LACP bonding.
> >>> When we disable SR-IOV from bios , everything working fine
> 
> Makes me wonder if things have been working with or without the OOT
> module on 6.5.7, as strictly speaking it's only considered a kernel
> regression if thing worked with a vanilla kernel (e.g. without OOT
> modules) beforehand and broke when switching to a newer vanilla kernel.
> If that's the case it would be okay to add to regzbot.
> 
> >> And the second is out-of-tree module FTBFS:
> > [... skip OOT stuff ...]
> > 
> >> Should I add the first regression to regzbot (since the second one
> >> is obviously out-of-tree problem), or should I asked detailed regression
> >> info to the reporter?
> > 
> > 	My vote is to get additional information.  Given the nature of
> > the workaround ("When we disable SR-IOV from bios , everything working
> > fine"), it's plausible that the underlying cause is something
> > platform-specific.
> 
> Maybe, but when it comes to the "no regressions" rule that likely makes
> no difference from Linus perspective.
> 
> But I guess unless the intel folks or someone else has an idea what
> might be wrong here we likely need a bisection (with vanilla kernels of
> course) to get anywhere.
> 

OK, thanks!

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 162 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Intel-wired-lan mailing list
Intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-wired-lan