Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/2] bpf: support setting max RTO for bpf_setsockopt

Martin KaFai Lau
2025-02-19T21:12:41Z

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@kernel.org> 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@meta.com.
>> 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.