From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 B502C8632A; Fri, 27 Feb 2026 02:25:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772159113; cv=none; b=gs6Jy0Xx5CUBxS8soAMSIuZGReYJNyyz9fyllDfZMG5hD/7obNSCakOA4RMVhibgYxR4sWahNxyP9R4rcyrOUt6Z9U/3+rCmf38z+hBwdkgVDILTj1X3ZdEjXC/PGm7hdedb37BvyzQWng15C0o2c+xC9Xc6vO4Doc7X4WAivEg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772159113; c=relaxed/simple; bh=eyrSIDsZ5QHi3TkgJVZHxpafO2KihE5BniAA72nJLW4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=t00XLfx/8iMb54MTpEMR5BAsWY8J7GwMLnmWNBM2lMbo47o3UogPCqdvCE4sdd2yos+iAYJ/KAGoyuFGv4xUzFq03ADkgzGVv8Ju8GVdIHN/nbaMm6TVOaa9cBTt7L0r5hfZZF/tQguaGzSbDoZRTOR79vOTwcXvjqH1B8fRHDM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=mcD1fvDt; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="mcD1fvDt" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8FC40C116C6; Fri, 27 Feb 2026 02:25:12 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1772159113; bh=eyrSIDsZ5QHi3TkgJVZHxpafO2KihE5BniAA72nJLW4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=mcD1fvDtIiYm+Z4aMDxWZtzT7vHvWjJsrTe+nujoAcqJBnuNLHKMIZ43e49feWG9l Vl7KPpUGTLd82JLeTiHvKyNPq2+K5gf06eCImcJGtZy2Zw0oQd0bT/2cR97b4AzUv+ AXOzmWUAwh499TB/ISuurUJiUtcjRYx4gFBHpZJ2Jj8awlM4WNAuwPyKBySM2luR8m 4PGmB1jRVSvKxin1jFusXN5Akm+E3ExucNIvZUSr22KwCu7jTB0m9HU+3S6evMfrbg o0nly42A6dpVSerY2a74elAGfn+sgWKUI4aIFM9aJ7UaDKTPtUcAloh4cl/XVkdhgq dDCYnA7wDUcSA== Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2026 18:25:11 -0800 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Ioana Ciornei Cc: Andrew Lunn , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Paolo Abeni , Shuah Khan , Simon Horman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/5] selftests: drivers: hw: add tests for the ethtool standard counters Message-ID: <20260226182511.0d33f9d1@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20260225150648.1542206-1-ioana.ciornei@nxp.com> <20260225150648.1542206-6-ioana.ciornei@nxp.com> <77f3e4e8-430e-4ae1-aa1f-8f70b4d8d3da@lunn.ch> <031c7375-0407-476a-92eb-0f894ec820f1@lunn.ch> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 16:18:21 +0200 Ioana Ciornei wrote: > > How about, fail the test if any are greater than 1% of the number of > > packets transmitted/received? My _guess_ is, if you have 1% packet > > loss, networking is not going to be happy anyway. It probably means > > you have one end doing Half duplex and the other Full. That is a > > typical configuration error you see causing collisions. Not that i've > > actually seen this for maybe a decade! > > > > Failing the test, with a comment about checking duplex configuration, > > seems sensible. > > Seems reasonable. Thanks for the help! FWIW the expectation is that the test should be able to run even on systems / boards with a single interface. So the control traffic (communicating with the traffic generator) will run over the same interface as the test. 1% error is unachievable. I'd only check the lower bound, and use some sanity value for the upper bound (2^30 ?) if at all