Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] selftests/xsk: stabilize timeout test behavior

[Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2026 at 11:02:48AM +0200, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 04:07:06PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 11:43:14 +0200 Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 11:50 PM Tushar Vyavahare
> > > > <tushar.vyavahare@intel.com> wrote:  
> > > > >
> > > > > This series improves AF_XDP selftests by making timeout handling
> > > > > explicit and fixing sources of non-determinism in xsk timeout tests.
> > > > >
> > > > > Patch 1 introduces test_spec::poll_tmout and removes implicit
> > > > > dependence on RX UMEM setup state for timeout behavior.
> > > > >
> > > > > Patch 2 fixes thread harness sequencing by attaching XDP programs
> > > > > before worker startup, removing signal-based termination, and using
> > > > > barrier synchronization only for dual-thread runs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Patch 3 restores shared_umem after POLL_TXQ_FULL so test-local
> > > > > configuration does not leak into subsequent cases on shared-netdev
> > > > > runs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Together these changes make timeout handling easier to follow and
> > > > > improve selftest stability, especially on real NIC runs.  
> > > > 
> > > > net-next is closed, but in the meantime I'll review the series ASAP.
> > > > 
> > > > BTW, another thing about selftests I had in my mind is that are you
> > > > planning to work on this [1]?  
> > > 
> > > This one is on me. I took your changes Jason and aligned ZC batching side
> > > to this behavior, followed by xskxceiver adjustment. I am planning to send
> > > this today EOD, however let's see how badly internal Sashiko will kick my
> > > ass.
> > 
> > Hi Maciej, do you want these applied? If they help make the tests less
> > flaky I think that it's fine to take them during the merge window.
> 
> Hi Jakub,
> 
> last refactor from Tushar broke BIDIRECTIONAL test case when HW is test
> target, but not on veth, so let me test these changes locally and then get
> back to you.
> 
> BPF CI runs xskxceiver on veth so this has not been caught. Seems my/our
> focus should be to enable xskxceiver HW tests on any kind of
> environment/infrastructure.
> 
> Gonna get back to you by the EOD.
> Maciej

Ah I replied on other thread I guess, so let me repeat:

Acked-by: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>
Tested-by: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>