From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (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 54D2A2F360A for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2026 13:32:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769693543; cv=none; b=NaDGiWiIxidlt4W41gr7LEDsu4J78TavHwDjRmEiyapBIuR/q+hIzGmByTPSP0s7W57Y8LVeR+5dGdO48yqZgisbDTi7hf3Et/tCBnTnHm/jmbSvdJk+TaGmHux+CaaoV8+WHopwb1jQvN6NNoME9pJGpOa1gt/X/pXq4Z8grxU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769693543; c=relaxed/simple; bh=acr+l+n5uELIpTITkxqlcC0HuyiXv9eaM40kwXcyjGs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=j0cNaw+rJXN6Vi7u1KaF3zt2QuBZlET8ke/VGoDAC/w5HCMBNuW/bPV4CdmNU9fhAKscdfeAcYbvgu66YfakNsSAlL1nA6hyvBrAWtoCEQeaaudjDV1LEYsGUV36gQE8prV5a+InyMBr4lEvm72hGkxHVF4bnp8wUFDcBvfuWz4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=lZtFhp/j; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=FgCzt01A; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="lZtFhp/j"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="FgCzt01A" Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 14:32:17 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1769693539; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=OZkDa4VE6zcXB0OuRLMsj/2QJ59tGffpRG45d25eYRw=; b=lZtFhp/jrtI5+ZUUGCc4dCf+dQe8zHXJi9mcWrvDMYraiToP2eVyWDO8HzK4c4cFFiGPZM kh6FeuRFU3UqUA8DVvNwXRB+51iuvOABUDR0xB2hICO6MIig+VyJAmDQ5PGg5taIBj3b1Z FZLDlWRop16l7Wl4jVWYXrE44iSfPeYu+Q9nD+5kmIMOb2CUF0HfmIaKSvEin1EnjBOARn wQK5P6juBZEnQTyjQ1j5Wr6vR0h9emSHn6OV7GFWQf1Kcb4BrfuCMNiEPBhwWm/46VTyA+ FXViBzN+QRNDx/XTR0l6FiJBcziPO6wZPuw9m/of5I3akJZYNppmaLmDl7eWSQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1769693539; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=OZkDa4VE6zcXB0OuRLMsj/2QJ59tGffpRG45d25eYRw=; b=FgCzt01AgnSirlptXjeks5e3vFOVxgNQ7QqwniuxrXswHYQRwnIB1AwRToSjf2b7WSlt4D f+jHSvy17mc2KCAw== From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Felix Maurer Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, horms@kernel.org, jkarrenpalo@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@kernel.org, allison.henderson@oracle.com, petrm@nvidia.com, antonio@openvpn.net Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 5/9] selftests: hsr: Add tests for more link faults with PRP Message-ID: <20260129133217.xNoDm9nn@linutronix.de> References: <774d7a2327d1c05b78ee30ac21297794bfcb0245.1769093335.git.fmaurer@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <774d7a2327d1c05b78ee30ac21297794bfcb0245.1769093335.git.fmaurer@redhat.com> On 2026-01-22 15:57:00 [+0100], Felix Maurer wrote: > Add tests where one link has different rates of packet loss or reorders > packets. PRP should still be able to recover from these link faults and > show no packet loss. However, it is acceptable to receive some level of > duplicate packets. This matches the current specification (IEC > 62439-3:2021) of the duplicate discard algorithm that requires it to be > "designed such that it never rejects a legitimate frame, while occasional > acceptance of a duplicate can be tolerated." The rate of acceptable > duplicates in this test is intentionally high (10%) to make the test > stable, the values I observed in the worst test cases (20% loss) are around > 5% duplicates. Do you know why we have the duplicates? It is because of the high sending rate at which point the blocks are dropped and we can't recognise the duplicate? > Signed-off-by: Felix Maurer Sebastian