From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CC75C43387 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 15:37:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 531FF21852 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 15:37:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="MYbTRI64" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726964AbeLRPgz (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Dec 2018 10:36:55 -0500 Received: from mail-qk1-f193.google.com ([209.85.222.193]:44452 "EHLO mail-qk1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726840AbeLRPgz (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Dec 2018 10:36:55 -0500 Received: by mail-qk1-f193.google.com with SMTP id n12so9684962qkh.11 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 07:36:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=cc:subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=6HpRSAOxlCyi0OWTFvflnj2CYme3RasMPz+oPuzQIGg=; b=MYbTRI64ofdLfo5h6jTx9uplhdfX1ROq1iDPLmq7/d2xQkgUi+GzHQF4zrbxUKjrU/ rPQU838wD427LQuBQMqcn8VSD5Aeu7GXYSvAmGf82tz+X+HW2PN5uK1ddJUSDpyuJ/7g b+ayKVt+U+b6TshrPcGXbHdFJRhw1bp15KBPs= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:cc:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6HpRSAOxlCyi0OWTFvflnj2CYme3RasMPz+oPuzQIGg=; b=ePQFiZePU+QpfAfDY0zwKPFFfGqg/ZcFEzFR8cq3wPim4M0eDqMSQOScZYhhnmEVQE XXjRZQcXUwMJksSNyazaM+Yuukery0ldG0EjqUg6Qq9qp0Id5ncjMu/NNBr7cd1boE78 hyUgIvZA+r5ncQZhVeu810qCSV3a2LpXFrcxFmisiIsGREfAQ+CtbeiCJa+ww23T9Pv8 a//M/tm3VJLceOYcO944No9e0grQjuuODCkbvKnrVluPp4Ajx5svfglOKtS9yGklub+r jCiQC4h7uuiJF6mzk34gaE5KbISl2eCwwWHpDVp0xWCYHrRZjWddwEVjFRfaSPn6Addu J4eg== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWYjNSl9GANl4KJHAIb6ZA8Ou0F8lT4XCPUob+pRfNrFz/1tT+Rv UavwRH5lCwwlgCjypk8cP1WlRjOeFqsKiQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/UHANJ2Sbzst/VlHfg4qsmDhC8gbEE6IqGqS6zWMBuc6OuXq+0PijO35wCJtAMzh4CHqPr+zA== X-Received: by 2002:a37:5bc1:: with SMTP id p184mr17083213qkb.121.1545147410850; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 07:36:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.49.18] ([138.204.25.31]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c77sm186584qkh.82.2018.12.18.07.36.47 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 18 Dec 2018 07:36:50 -0800 (PST) Cc: Rafael David Tinoco , "David S. Miller" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Willem de Bruijn , Dan Rue , Anders Roxell Subject: Re: selftests/net: udpgso: LTS kernels supportability ? To: shuah References: <1d2c9a10-6caf-49ff-b921-8b93dbe96f78@kernel.org> <1de7a003-0aac-1f4f-b836-267136e30a0a@linaro.org> From: Rafael David Tinoco Organization: Linaro Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 13:36:46 -0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/18/18 12:53 PM, shuah wrote: > On 12/18/18 4:37 AM, Rafael David Tinoco wrote: >> On 12/17/18 4:42 PM, shuah wrote: >>> Hi Rafael, >>> >>> On 12/17/18 10:53 AM, Rafael David Tinoco wrote: >>>> Shuah, >>>> >>>> I was recently investigating some errors coming out of our functional >>>> tests and we, Dan and I, came up with a discussion that might not be >>>> new >>>> for you, but, interests us, in defining how to better use kselftests as >>>> a regression mechanism/tool in our LKFT (https://lkft.linaro.org). >>>> >>>> David / Willem, >>>> >>>> I'm only using udpgso as an example for what I'd like to ask Shuah. >>>> Feel >>>> free to jump in in the discussion if you think its worth. >>>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> Regarding: udpgso AND https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3980 >>>> >>>> udpgso tests are failing in kernels bellow 4.18 because of 2 main >>>> reasons: >>>> >>>> 1) udp4_ufo_fragment does not seem to demand the GSO SKB to be > than >>>> the MTU for older kernels (4th test case in udpgso.c). >>>> >>>> 2) setsockopt(...UDP_SEGMENT) support is not present for older kernels. >>>> (commits "udp: generate gso with UDP_SEGMENT" and its fixes seem to be >>>> needed). >>> >>> This case is easy right? Based on the test output below , I can see that >>> the failure is due to >>> >>> ./udpgso: setsockopt udp segment: Protocol not available. setsockopt() >>> is returning an error to clearly indicate that this options isn't >>> supported. This will be a test change to say test is a skip as opposed >>> to fail. >> >> You referred to (2). (1) isn't that straightforward. >> >>> We have a solution for this - test should SKIP as opposed to FAIL. >>> >>>> With that explained, finally the question/discussion: >>>> >>>> Shouldn't we enforce a versioning mechanism for tests that are testing >>>> recently added features ? I mean, some of the tests inside udpgso >>>> selftest are good enough for older kernels... >>> >>> Right - we do have generic way to handle that by detecting if feature is >>> supported and skip instead of using Kernel version which is going to be >>> hard to maintain. >> >> You can't distinguish case (1) failures between real failures OR older >> kernel behaving differently then testcase expects. >> >>>> >>>> But, because we have no control over "kernel features" and "supported >>>> test cases", we, Linaro, have to end up blacklisting all selftests that >>>> have new feature oriented tests, because one or two test cases only. >>>> > > Can you share the blacklisted tests? Sure! The following yaml file: https://github.com/Linaro/qa-reports-known-issues/blob/master/kselftests-production.yaml Contains a list of all "known issues" for kselftests running in LKFT. 1 entry example (this particular one): - environments: *environments_all notes: > LKFT: net: udpgso.sh PASS on 4.18 and failed on 4.17 and below projects: - lkft/linux-stable-rc-4.14-oe - lkft/linux-stable-rc-4.9-oe - lkft/linux-stable-rc-4.4-oe - lkft/linaro-hikey-stable-rc-4.4-oe test_names: - kselftest/net_udpgso.sh - kselftest-vsyscall-mode-none/net_udpgso.sh - kselftest-vsyscall-mode-native/net_udpgso.sh url: https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3980 active: true intermittent: false Tells us: Its a known issue for all environments (arm, arm64, x86, x86_64, qemus, etc) and kernels 4.14, 4.9 and 4.4. The "url" shows our internal bug related to the known issue/investigation. With that, we don't consider it as a regression when this test fails for 4.14, 4.9 and 4.4 in any existing environment (boards, qemu/kvm, hosts, diff archs). I hope it helps you, Cheers o/ -- Rafael D. Tinoco Linaro - Kernel Validation