IOn Mon, 21 Jul 2025 21:34:05 +0300 Gal Pressman wrote: > > That's a reasonable way to modify the test. But I'm not sure it's > > something that should be blocking merging the patches. > > Or for that matter whether it's Mohsin's responsibility to make the > > test cater to quirks of mlx5, > > Definitely not a quirk, you cannot assume the headers are in the linear > part, especially if you're going to put this program as reference in the > kernel tree. > > This issue has nothing to do with mlx5, but a buggy XDP program. We put the tests in the tree to foster collaboration. If you think the test should be improved please send patches. I don't think the kernel will allow pulling headers if they are not in the linear section. But that's your problem to solve. > > which is not even part of NIPA testing - > > we have no way of knowing what passes for mlx5, what regresses it etc. > > People have been developing XDP code that runs on mlx5 long before NIPA > even existed 🤷♂️.. > And as you know we run these selftests on mlx5 hardware, as evident by > Nimrod's mail, and others you've seen on the list. You know what regresses. No, please don't try to dispute facts. It's not integrated, if you go on a vacation upstream will have no idea what broke in mlx5. Either you are reporting the results upstream or our guarantees on regressions are best effort. BTW I don't understand how you can claim that a new test regresses something. It never passed on mlx5 == not a regression.
