From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com>
Cc: netdev-bot+sashiko@kernel.org, kuba@kernel.org,
davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com,
horms@kernel.org, linux@armlinux.org.uk, hkallweit1@gmail.com,
corbet@lwn.net, skhan@linuxfoundation.org,
o.rempel@pengutronix.de, vladimir.oltean@nxp.com,
f.fainelli@gmail.com, thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/3] selftests: drv-net: pause: Validate the pause autonegotiation with a partner
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2026 16:49:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <669ec93e-29d5-4fba-b272-b3cf27969fc9@lunn.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2a008b68-7f8f-4b30-8026-58d8a64ae5d1@bootlin.com>
On Tue, Oct 13, 2026 at 04:02:44PM +0200, Maxime Chevallier wrote:
>
>
> On 10/13/26 14:37, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >>> Firmware-managed NICs such as ice also keep the link on close by default.
> >>> In drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_main.c, the PHY is only taken down
> >>> on close when ICE_FLAG_LINK_DOWN_ON_CLOSE_ENA is set:
> >>>
> >>> if (test_bit(ICE_FLAG_LINK_DOWN_ON_CLOSE_ENA, vsi->back->flags)) {
> >>> int link_err = ice_phy_cfg(vsi, false);
> >>>
> >>> On this kind of hardware, a directly connected peer would be cached as
> >>> cfg.lp_controllable = False. pause_aneg_resolution(), and the four later
> >>> tests in the series, would then skip with "is not directly connected".
> >>> That message points at cabling, when the real cause is that the PHY
> >>> stayed powered.
> >>>
> >>> The new remote lp_advertising checks in pause_advertising_test() would
> >>> also be skipped without any notice.
> >>
> >> Not much we can do if the peer doesn't behave as expected here. Not sure this
> >> requires attention.
> >
> > I sounds like anything with a BMC is going to hit this. So i doubt you
> > will see it with your stmmac boards. Maybe sometime in the future we
> > can query the NIC to see if it supports NCSI and change the test
> > behaviour to fit?
>
> Maybe the strategy is wrong then, the goal is to check that we're directly
> connected to our test peer through a cable, or indirectly through a switch.
>
> Link flapping seemed to me like the most generic solution, but maybe we can
> do something entirely different ? Like for example trigger a re-negotiation
> with ethtool -r and check for link flap, or maybe more reliably, ask the user
> to pass a flag to the selftest command saying if yes or no we're directly
> connected ?
Triggering a renegotiation is probably the best. I've no experience
with BMCs, but i suspect a down will not work, because it cuts the BMC
off from the network. A renegotiation does seem like a safer choice.
Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-13 14:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-25 18:26 [PATCH net-next v2 0/3] selftests: drv-net: Introduce flow-control selftest Maxime Chevallier (Netdev Foundation)
2026-09-25 18:26 ` [PATCH net-next v2 1/3] selftests: drv-net: Introduce a selftest for ethtool flow control Maxime Chevallier (Netdev Foundation)
2026-09-29 3:26 ` netdev-bot+sashiko
2026-10-13 9:04 ` Maxime Chevallier
2026-10-13 12:29 ` Andrew Lunn
2026-09-25 18:26 ` [PATCH net-next v2 2/3] selftests: drv-net: pause: Validate the pause autonegotiation with a partner Maxime Chevallier (Netdev Foundation)
2026-09-29 3:26 ` netdev-bot+sashiko
2026-10-13 9:35 ` Maxime Chevallier
2026-10-13 12:37 ` Andrew Lunn
2026-10-13 14:02 ` Maxime Chevallier
2026-10-13 14:49 ` Andrew Lunn [this message]
2026-09-25 18:26 ` [PATCH net-next v2 3/3] selftests: drv-net: pause: Validate pause autoneg interactions with link autoneg Maxime Chevallier (Netdev Foundation)
2026-09-29 3:26 ` netdev-bot+sashiko
2026-09-30 23:07 ` [PATCH net-next v2 0/3] selftests: drv-net: Introduce flow-control selftest Jakub Kicinski
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=669ec93e-29d5-4fba-b272-b3cf27969fc9@lunn.ch \
--to=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=f.fainelli@gmail.com \
--cc=hkallweit1@gmail.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com \
--cc=netdev-bot+sashiko@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=o.rempel@pengutronix.de \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com \
--cc=vladimir.oltean@nxp.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®