From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-171.mta1.migadu.com (out-171.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.171]) (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 BC0A22620DD for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2025 18:40:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.171 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741718418; cv=none; b=AJgBnWAAdD87TOktJVkBlvbbudiKki1tL/gfbHBFQBEfIphB8uWx5FxW+p7G0t49CwUzeX+OZHiIFZaVtnlA2PrOruYne3mlhEdXcuMfsoDYETMCo/pZZn/txuH7eBQDYqeWaPlgMiCdjH/QXVX+x2x+tcOZPhQWHjFFQ7+Y2rA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741718418; c=relaxed/simple; bh=9xG9QTQtQBmQNV6osS3BrPTWwfFv3/a2c7igUB5Sf1A=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=pnGVnhkZnTI25YSazwBykCwKeSb5LBduBYJx+uZClebiraUK+NnP+vBr17Hc6YeBHLoQPNjjS4WGW1YspGS33tsAUGf3v7l//hUNUqzi7j4Ow9SKa2BI7uzN4lFkib06rtvENJGZcgGcHi7kaGkVn+bQ2GRUMr5Cr6j2Kdfsw8o= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=woDyER38; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.171 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="woDyER38" Message-ID: <5e9fc094-8baf-4b67-b58e-dae5ff9ce350@linux.dev> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1741718403; 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: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=E2wN/fiHfypcf4PZ+bKJhIj9eRvIZOyOB7F1A6T/pwo=; b=woDyER383WptjcGRxnEO1LItHudHvpUHuMzzw8MMmbK1FQa9bAn5kx4ARjZPEcbF1+HK+v Bcf9xfVZdgLrXSE9BHLSA+kjuhlaHvfKbCzd1c07mobdPCcx1l3MRAlATAz58z4hOpzz+l vlJvqeoxPhOiZTtZrmleiiT2SIO6lCA= Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2025 11:39:58 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/6] tcp: add some RTO MIN and DELACK MAX {bpf_}set/getsockopt supports To: Jason Xing Cc: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org, kernel-ci@meta.com, andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, bpf , Network Development References: <20250311085437.14703-1-kerneljasonxing@gmail.com> <80e745a45391cb8bb60b49978c0a9af5f51bec183f01a7b8f300992a4b14aa6f@mail.kernel.org> X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Martin KaFai Lau Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On 3/11/25 4:07 AM, Jason Xing wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 10:26 AM wrote: >> >> Dear patch submitter, >> >> CI has tested the following submission: >> Status: FAILURE >> Name: [bpf-next,v2,0/6] tcp: add some RTO MIN and DELACK MAX {bpf_}set/getsockopt supports >> Patchwork: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=942617&state=* >> Matrix: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/13784214269 >> >> Failed jobs: >> test_progs-aarch64-gcc: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/13784214269/job/38548852334 >> test_progs_no_alu32-aarch64-gcc: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/13784214269/job/38548853075 >> test_progs-s390x-gcc: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/13784214269/job/38548829871 >> test_progs_no_alu32-s390x-gcc: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/13784214269/job/38548830246 > > I see https://netdev.bots.linux.dev/static/nipa/942617/apply/desc that It cannot apply, so it applied to bpf-next/net. I just confirmed by first checking this: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/pulls then find your patches and figure out bpf-net_base: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/pull/8649 > says the patch can not be applied. Could it be possible that CI > applied it on the wrong branch? I targeted the net branch. > > I have no clue this series is affecting the following tests The test is changing the exact same test setget_sockopt and it failed, so it should be suspicious enough to look at the details of the bpf CI report. The report said it failed in aarch64 and s390 but x86 seems to be fine. When the test failed, it pretty much failed on all tests. It looks like some of the new set/getsockopt checks failed in these two archs. A blind guess is the jiffies part. > (./test_progs -t setget_sockopt). It seems it has nothing to do with > this series. And I'm unable to reproduce it locally.