From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from oak.phenome.org (oak.phenome.org [193.110.157.52]) (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 D54DF3D6CB6 for ; Wed, 27 May 2026 09:05:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.110.157.52 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779872752; cv=none; b=Q36VxRq6vp9jkaQ9KzDRQw5UdwxuCXeEWg0VtPQ/0lzNB8kosEGQ1yuSNJOvCkJFL3/hrEel5BQLF4uu/R7bfn/Fw92+eyig2xP0ghdTGauOsj5HLHPU4zw1q6FdUjre9kRqOqBbPfLuMZWLsziHzuwuFKnzAHdztZU5/zUSyas= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779872752; c=relaxed/simple; bh=qfsqRf6v/474IB9jMHqiCe11GPPAWUJzFdxIEsT6oeg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Disposition; b=kiy9Pv0hBVACoaqinua7u6FieJXKG//fGUrTHVCBP7B8an+zLvg5giwWYtGGdbagIO27fvgQKhTmPCC9IhsYktZrCBswjEUSuDfMIp5UwoKbky8ggZ+0C+RJzmVkEnt0MHzy0VkAWlwpaoW6MV5ANUuVGIZ0ENZhoYqpGCBU8jI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=phenome.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=phenome.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=phenome.org header.i=@phenome.org header.b=hrBRNfYp; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.110.157.52 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=phenome.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=phenome.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=phenome.org header.i=@phenome.org header.b="hrBRNfYp" Authentication-Results: oak.phenome.org (amavisd); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) reason="pass (just generated, assumed good)" header.d=phenome.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=phenome.org; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:content-type :content-type:mime-version:message-id:subject:subject:from:from :date:date:received; s=oak1; t=1779872746; x=1780736747; bh=qfsq Rf6v/474IB9jMHqiCe11GPPAWUJzFdxIEsT6oeg=; b=hrBRNfYpgmTZgaeWY/12 eYxY0mk4qo8JfjrZEewfLv0639w4L9DqD69BeIHnLqLT8PPUsqjTycwAAxwKsLAe jJGnxR3Pw5fSuL0FMXYgHJsd4zoeajpCMPpDXjAwPhqv7xtJhnG8jM1bSAGJ6/jN LvCYmJP9bAJg3cfvxShNGKO+jUHkN+zgSDTRSGnaw/kLvVTUe08++5E8QtosRL2b 5uh3BeSuqZ+GJKcJimTwFVge+Vk2/a/zkmCDDmLjV8RhFaefH7BuFKSmKzBXlT1P Y2nuLQxMgN9oWYHKp9DqUbr8v+O0dOvWMpYEDmyIaiHFsDcy4COrA0M9h0zuI4lH og== X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd at oak.phenome.org Received: by oak.phenome.org (Postfix); Wed, 27 May 2026 11:05:46 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 27 May 2026 11:05:43 +0200 From: Antony Antony To: kuba@kernel.org Cc: steffen.klassert@secunet.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: nipa: tree selection fails for ipsec-next series? Message-ID: 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Jakub, nipa run, 1101209, failed tree selection for my v9 series and I wanted to share what I found while diagnosing it. I feel this happens on patches, ipsec-next, too. In the past, I ignored it. Since this patch set is long series I looked deeper. https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/migrate-state-v9-16-ad9947e4ae74@secunet.com/ "Guessing tree name failed - patch did not apply" Looking at the nipa source, series_tree_name_direct() matches the cover letter subject against _trees.keys(). Since ipsec and ipsec-next are not in the deployed conf_trees, the match fails and nipa falls back to guessing against net-next. I am guessing ipsec-next is missing in the config too. Where is the config nipa runs use? I didn't find the exact config nipa bot used. I also noticed that my v8 (series 1089594) was identified as net-next — it applied to net-next at the time, which masked the issue. v9 no longer applies to net-next, so the guessing failed visibly this time. https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/migrate-state-v8-14-4578fb016965@secunet.com/ Any idea what could be improved? Is it because the e-mails arrive out or order? Would it make sense to add ipsec and ipsec-next to nipa's [trees] config? That way series_tree_name_direct() could match them directly from the cover letter subject rather than falling through to guessing. Thanks, Antony