From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-185.mta1.migadu.com (out-185.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.185]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 674DA24FBE8 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2025 21:12:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.185 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739999563; cv=none; b=TGiCC2GUD/SZ/b5luBb9PVQ/9vdY0FAX1aLJVGZS/G1ryxneE/A+r8Dttyu4/iLikW3OVK5sfVdZE8RrS4hny5LcFqQwlLrRW27OV7dPo7i6LZEy/Fz++PaQolrMMGJoz49flVTXYe03wZxkdAqCjYPzRCBwtnFisJPYpaphmEM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739999563; c=relaxed/simple; bh=auzO+pa68P9lX4nJ6rWx5NXa3Hb+7X6MKykJ8Hni9l8=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=p+I8U4DWXhjIpaLFqgTIaDVHv0pEVQVkX6yUX68gMF/RQwTafn3x+BMMrwFA5+4S5ULDR3Vr4WU+x91tg4T6U019yGYk/Cqf5uiBEd1Ap0Cad1BIDM4KulMutnLVvxu7AdV6TQwSxFlxWPAFFUISu4qfulLpyYZ/zh84iPU7zZA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=dADgGXrt; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.185 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="dADgGXrt" Message-ID: <44e56c1a-3445-4cae-abdb-76ada1084193@linux.dev> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1739999559; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=cpU9LMPluU4o0fBhrfV+lUYxw3TckvjTTYAStKf3b+0=; b=dADgGXrte+KmsvzmgIoxKazwIL0BhE+KkZTu+OJ5hw+zlZrVvoWFl7re+FrWzsQvrFpRCw DmJ7parD2InZLwzpQ4NjSBJTUv72foL2BjyI2gE/1fkiMcgsPein6uGFJ2BDVPK7V/Ysw2 vtk51vTTHYcxUMvOhpUOiA4a7RB+YQs= Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:12:24 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/2] bpf: support setting max RTO for bpf_setsockopt To: Daniel Xu , Jason Xing , Ihor Solodrai Cc: kernel-ci , "andrii@kernel.org" , "daniel@iogearbox.net" , bpf , "bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org" References: <20250219081333.56378-1-kerneljasonxing@gmail.com> <38bb5556f4c90c7d4fbe9933ba3984136f5f3d5cf8d95e4f4bc6cbfb02e1e019@mail.kernel.org> Content-Language: en-US X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Martin KaFai Lau In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT 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 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.