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 A88D3368978; Sat, 28 Feb 2026 00:23:42 +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=1772238222; cv=none; b=PZCVe8xbd3Yl7H5KWOcGlxVoNnAUR8+7rf4fyqZ15v/162HNJBo93ojkzE2cWleNvX4//wFxjUVHaVF8k1Fg5LvJ2OgA+wS/yElFSBgnExeAB4oYOSoHcGHwSFC8TOUG7dzxv+vJ4vR007ixMlB+Ag/CKinQRbr0/T6hn+ImgWU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772238222; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xY9TM+CCy8Kd9PVvEASGuE0lYodI/nasizjdzDWCuIM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=b3RVzfu3OmveM+CRunfttKu9JhCZQWuUnRhYmrDOOU3Kng/z3Ea6TYFlOCyV7nO96DQ4uunypcvheqmlKj892Jk/klX4O1vpmXsqZEuRaaCXtlm1s+AyWfKH6ya6SnNQuN8GrJIWcvwm/fuSSZp43LmmKp+MFU2dJYTfa0yuZ3Y= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=h5UMkxGr; 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="h5UMkxGr" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AD1CCC116C6; Sat, 28 Feb 2026 00:23:41 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1772238222; bh=xY9TM+CCy8Kd9PVvEASGuE0lYodI/nasizjdzDWCuIM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=h5UMkxGrRunHXPy2Bh+b32fvht5LIB1Ppcwv/BXgtzdgP0h57ru6qJhCAPk6ntY1G kejOcbu9qhP8LULA9VE5OrSQZXvAoZ6WHDrEIipGRkUO8ubJwRxdYLeJNChGB1kbG8 fo4A7/vgrUqWGSDLtXydFVhjFLb1bDP6v9LCRT+kGAjP8UqtjVnsI0+IOnPR87yxXy nTfGfkfMPFhJlx6TvPrfRU3nQFBVQzY1I5UzSmFlIXb1PTYyYhz/bkQS1kCUyChBkY v4pZcB5cgnWieXpDdrM48qYRDGdxbgKOzXPDo2aaO+CdSGAK/Uxh2tUwzuf4kiXphe miC3YhkpOnbgQ== Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2026 16:23:40 -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: <20260227162340.4675e766@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> <20260226182511.0d33f9d1@kernel.org> 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 Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:34:28 +0200 Ioana Ciornei wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 06:25:11PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > 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 > > Really? I didn't know of that expectation at all. > > I did take ethtool_rmon.sh as an example and that selftest as well > takes NUM_NETIFS=2 and does check for both a lower bound and upper bound > that takes into account a 1% deviance from the target. I called out in the other thread that the bash scripts in this dir pre-date any serious CI use. They are only there to get them out of the way of SW-only CI testing. > How would the test even work with only a single interface? Hopefully the readme mentioned in my other reply clarifies.