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 9A1A625A359 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2026 15:55:19 +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=1770047721; cv=none; b=KvDeWyksukANHy6093R9oiO7pU/+SYmPTPEm0RCna7+/xRSroZdbBA6v9GDvqrptgsZ0gFeOlrlw4x3cBxd4jwqmibSbQ0aa8tVzG81PMWS/9D4wXbTA/5OYOWAvobPf5AZvUB7jZc6wpsEhlZA1QPTW4m6DmZfUsFVTl1IC/MI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770047721; c=relaxed/simple; bh=djGef6lbEOAxne/CHNTtMDlsVAYFTF82PtQWdpxIbnA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=fxJb2CIo+l3xnviPdJwiHm/b2gjHHnl3HkiJoyRxsbnSNiLXH+oEqPTYpEHeCPqMMdPkqXvmtvq1xYQtVpzwduu0z+SNdnmSMAq4xOgNpNtEG0krIaosmLT2NinIxzeWKo6IRDPaToOBry7dpyu0qISdwwonIxLtEvz8labr5A4= 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=HRVGol+5; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=zN8sJBou; 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="HRVGol+5"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="zN8sJBou" Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2026 16:55:10 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1770047712; 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=4N466cezhTxRA2tHnMg4e8iM47CokcYzSXlphkbfhjI=; b=HRVGol+5WjkqXqgzaf2tYA3eGqkvdcTL8V79ISYnHCqfSUxXEGKXAhdAxjU2sOuMIvA3PH qefpX+xBS4/rPL8ICMuvMhtejz5P8gtK6UbHslkyxmTp5UnWLR/oJKoZVQtg6ymcNccxRO tOJAyOZonUnPHD2CYkCqGm/VkOQ4u8C8XIIxZsWVKVtwI+KUjJjqrH7SyBrmJbKKU77ehY tW4jmp3cJkOd6dQ4y31fkuqL8DGTS9fVbfb218vEmTVT//GifnKgrB+dG6Jbgt6xemaopc CEQAxS5dLC4iwPtJAqUgbaAjcNCYheuzPGz11PFuvcW0yEplN6aGbMsp0cFE3g== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1770047712; 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=4N466cezhTxRA2tHnMg4e8iM47CokcYzSXlphkbfhjI=; b=zN8sJBouraBmY+Gi3e3cujFLsdzUDsOW9mzr8WpS5j7fAaQSYbeXRwLS/mTp37rEnR/ItL E9qWRDTw6JgzSFCw== 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 1/9] selftests: hsr: Add ping test for PRP Message-ID: <20260202155510.C1zpsxnk@linutronix.de> References: <20260129110500.l2jOMEYp@linutronix.de> <20260129152149.dKwN1yGM@linutronix.de> 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: On 2026-02-02 12:51:12 [+0100], Felix Maurer wrote: > > Hm, I am not sure? For PRP, it's an explicit requirement to use the same > > MAC addresses for both ports. For HSR, I think the standard is less > > clear about the MAC addresses. And at least our code seems to assume > > that there could be different MACs on the two interfaces of a node? But > > yes, the node merging addresses this. > > I'm still not 100% certain, but I agree that the standard reads more > like the MAC addresses should be the same for the two HSR ports. At the > moment, the kernel and the test assumes that they can/should be > different. Therefore, I think we should fix this across the board in > another patchset if we agree that's the right thing to do. I would suggest to do so. This could serve as bad example and my PTP userland patches expect the same MAC on both ports. So ;) > Thanks, > Felix > Sebastian