From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from vps0.lunn.ch (vps0.lunn.ch [156.67.10.101]) (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 8D7C3356A09; Thu, 26 Feb 2026 13:31:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=156.67.10.101 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772112699; cv=none; b=CIHyFeLxS+iwW0eIr5Dfrtrc0tL1h3N1ukhDWqQqqDdIOAGuvLcFfZxO+1ZAWE1MpFceoKd+3RaiQydvcB+DXO2PJmzQY+QLUDZ1AVl/QDfp0oxNJ6WuVZzb9O2i1SlTwnCHEWmqm+lDBDrD1mXRJZxOCHCmVtwYB11Fm++HNQ0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772112699; c=relaxed/simple; bh=lpaHEgFZCQQnSmm8lOYbYNpUhu/oWdj5v7MfFolijw0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ewMZ5X+Be4ICxdTjoW4j21DzqkqQc/KESb5R2UAJNukwENMJUEkyC0pOXUcxf7PyqCbimXR8CEZbN7MRDHHWbw98xtF6kY7zygvGFk+6rjhmFEYNcUU1beP7GHChWIQDq4Kw3cy2Lym9yTTRug4Hl2+Ov9SokDe4+ab/1a5C2Vg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lunn.ch; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lunn.ch; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.b=kRXka2MC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=156.67.10.101 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lunn.ch Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lunn.ch Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.b="kRXka2MC" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lunn.ch; s=20171124; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Disposition:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject: Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:References; bh=swuA3TDEKA9Vj1lWKiwbHpayo+/rkT8Lwoj/1cEFnog=; b=kRXka2MCkwdEQzDDvCSkmbN4GN 0Clrzkrvz/M+cl2ZZODDHpA8y8SSlKEy0ULBXFslS+F0KkFqWRvUrOp74mFcqMSpqSTUzgKyAF96D yYn31USX0OUsySsd3twnJlrq5jUKNztniRkNNa8/W9n0o7MVZ0+nHOwLEr0F+NpOgNo4=; Received: from andrew by vps0.lunn.ch with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1vvbSg-008t33-5l; Thu, 26 Feb 2026 14:31:26 +0100 Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2026 14:31:26 +0100 From: Andrew Lunn To: Ioana Ciornei Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , 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: <031c7375-0407-476a-92eb-0f894ec820f1@lunn.ch> References: <20260225150648.1542206-1-ioana.ciornei@nxp.com> <20260225150648.1542206-6-ioana.ciornei@nxp.com> <77f3e4e8-430e-4ae1-aa1f-8f70b4d8d3da@lunn.ch> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: > I am back with a bit more information. The counters which were not > checked in this version can be grouped in two categories: > > - Error counters such as: > > u64 FrameCheckSequenceErrors; > u64 AlignmentErrors; > u64 FramesLostDueToIntMACXmitError; > u64 CarrierSenseErrors; > u64 FramesLostDueToIntMACRcvError; > u64 InRangeLengthErrors; > u64 OutOfRangeLengthField; > u64 FrameTooLongErrors; > u64 FramesAbortedDueToXSColls; > > I did extend the selftest with these ones so that we check them > against zero. I ran the test hundreds of times and I did not see any > problems. Great. > > - Collision related counters (not really errors): > > u64 SingleCollisionFrames; > u64 MultipleCollisionFrames; > u64 FramesWithDeferredXmissions; > u64 LateCollisions; > u64 FramesWithExcessiveDeferral; > > With these I don't know what to do. Theoretically, they could be > non-zero in half-duplex circumstances which means that checking for > zero would not be entirely accurate. 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. Andrew