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.