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=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 5C159C31E5B for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 16:38:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CB7320873 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 16:38:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="aqBX0fp2" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730015AbfFRQiL (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jun 2019 12:38:11 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-f66.google.com ([209.85.208.66]:46594 "EHLO mail-ed1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729349AbfFRQiL (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jun 2019 12:38:11 -0400 Received: by mail-ed1-f66.google.com with SMTP id d4so22613605edr.13; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 09:38:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jXvYZkP3QgcqTxDSuncKgo4ShXluNam18sSbFv5z5xQ=; b=aqBX0fp2a5KdzVqzyq88Qk4VrNCAp8+J6RpZE5ov+uxD89jHzVXUWhbsp5un/nw7s4 WHy7YH2Lf528kIC9QWinidXkZUMYkpmhxFwuW3nyjfvdo/PTPz6ywVz9REjup6lLTmn5 TAayu7vmEnQ0Wq0owMSpG5v/eRq8JezKJeF56TNsJn5FGiAGO7+IivzCe5V//Jw25bp7 NTnDqKJqXQTiqdMSSJRpvwkIerLwk2MWQos+WP0YQzRmNek2qBCcJXmKww8bDT8k0T0m Y9l/f1tsoCJQH2qyyo3yUyG7xQBY8nelnODKBWckIb8z2cJs2CqUiNE8M9GRC53kBCRb ioPw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jXvYZkP3QgcqTxDSuncKgo4ShXluNam18sSbFv5z5xQ=; b=NVGBgIimjXr4k3cSNJFpe6YHxJK2R7wxFgHsI7Ia8S9OHiCZY9dXiXCGTcWOYntqDh eqZvp3fvJX45U8P97l6P4f/J3IXe9wnxpidv6Ha2tZj2xmZgL+zTHYV8lQ0r7wC+u3kp 91TlQpAOur7JHJBKCcz5AuWXfS7TSAye7VmVTV0Q+7aAnOufbRSfL9uUXMrkefuYKmxt ymJ5Sbl/Z1X4FYg+LeY4h8jtRh0naBf8vw7dBnsUHY49gKubZRK/2vSojNmk8Pkckl2o LgkD19Kj4fBQkHSwzyYLE6jJeAlwZ6NffhCyV5/ZrjuU/r9b4J7N57KIj89X1DW7OVIO od3w== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW/g5E8qfmtOytwRQMj9M+0mDTQ29cs8W4XCeq2tVRcAOAya69T 2O6j/JX6/r1t72X12IpgyoNAv7YHJrTrvizk3HT4tQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw9pH+6wam8u8vh6qWJbTBhm1QeTozsFqj2bAghBHPIFlFM+3Jo3Umal/5U93AZZRzO8XGL3Im4JLIhd+6rzbI= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:2acf:: with SMTP id m15mr101493524eje.31.1560875889268; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 09:38:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190618161036.GA28190@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20190618161036.GA28190@kroah.com> From: Willem de Bruijn Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 12:37:33 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 4.19: udpgso_bench_tx: setsockopt zerocopy: Unknown error 524 To: Greg KH Cc: Naresh Kamboju , "David S. Miller" , Netdev , open list , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , Fred Klassen Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 12:10 PM Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 08:31:16AM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 7:27 AM Naresh Kamboju > > wrote: > > > > > > selftests: net: udpgso_bench.sh failed on 4.19, 4.14, 4.9 and 4.4 branches. > > > PASS on stable branch 5.1, mainline and next. > > > This failure is started happening on 4.19 and older kernel branches after > > > kselftest upgrade to version 5.1 > > > > Does version 5.1 here mean running tests from Linux 5.1, against older kernels? > > > > > Is there any possibilities to backport ? > > > > > > Error: > > > udpgso_bench_tx: setsockopt zerocopy: Unknown error 524 > > > > MSG_ZEROCOPY for UDP was added in commit b5947e5d1e71 ("udp: > > msg_zerocopy") in Linux 5.0. > > > > The selftest was expanded with this feature in commit db63e489c7aa > > ("selftests: extend zerocopy tests to udp"), also in Linux 5.0. > > > > Those tests are not expected to pass on older kernels. > > Any way to degrade gracefully if the feature is not present at all in > the kernel under test? People run the latest version of kselftests on > older kernels all the time. We add new tests along with new features and bug fixes all the time. All of those will fail on older kernels, as expected. I'm honestly surprised to hear that we run newer tests against older kernels. Is the idea to validate fixes in stable branches? If so, should we instead backport the relevant tests to those stable branches? Only the tests that verify fixes, leaving out those for new features, of course. Specific to the above test, I can add a check command testing setsockopt SO_ZEROCOPY return value. AFAIK kselftest has no explicit way to denote "skipped", so this would just return "pass". Sounds a bit fragile, passing success when a feature is absent.