Thanks David, Tyler, I ran the next-net-intel branch through DTS with the nic utilizing the ixgbe driver, and everything is passing now. When this reaches the main repo I will return the nic in question to UNH CI testing. Best, Patrick On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 5:37 PM Tyler Retzlaff wrote: > On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 10:53:22AM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > > Hello Patrick, > > > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 10:00 PM Patrick Robb wrote: > > > > > > I want to report a possible regression from this patch series seen > from CI testing on our Intel 82599ES 10G NIC, which we failed to report to > patchwork when this initially went under CI due to a bug in our Jenkins > reporting scripts. Use of the ixgbe driver appears to be affected. Tyler I > apologize for the issues seen with reporting. We've made some temporary > changes to avoid this happening again, and are currently reworking our > reporting process entirely to provide greater reliability. > > > > > > Here is a DTS snippet showing the issue, and the full log for the > failing virtio_smoke test can be downloaded here: > https://dpdkdashboard.iol.unh.edu/results/dashboard/patchsets/26560/ > > > > > > 06/06/2023 18:22:58 TestVirtioSmoke: Start send packets > and verify > > > 06/06/2023 18:22:58 tester: ifconfig > enp134s0f0 mtu 9000 > > > 06/06/2023 18:22:58 tester: > > > 06/06/2023 18:42:59 TestVirtioSmoke: Test Case > test_virtio_pvp Result FAILED: TIMEOUT on port start 0 > > > 06/06/2023 18:42:59 TestVirtioSmoke: port start 0 > > > > > > ixgbe_dev_wait_setup_link_complete(): IXGBE link thread not complete > too long time! > > > ixgbe_dev_wait_setup_link_complete(): IXGBE link thread not complete > too long time! > > > ixgbe_dev_wait_setup_link_complete(): IXGBE link thread not complete > too long time! > > > > > > We initially took this Intel10G testing offline to investigate as we > thought it was a lab infra failure. Obviously that wasn't the case, so > ideally we will bring this back online when appropriate. But, I don't want > to do so right now and start failing everyone's patchseries which are > obviously unrelated to this. Comments on this are welcome, otherwise of > course I will just return this test coverage to our CI when the state of > the git tree allows for it. > > > > > > Apologies for the missing report and the timeline on this. We are > taking action to deliver results more reliably going forward. > > > > (reduced the cc list a bit) > > > > This is probably the same issue than what was reported by Intel > > validation: https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1249 > > > > Thanks David > > I should have read the next thread in the mail chain before replying. > > > A fix has been merged in next-net-intel, it will reach the main repo > soon. > > > https://git.dpdk.org/next/dpdk-next-net-intel/commit/?id=fe4ce0aee766969a0e27fe28ced8ee7c761a2c4e > > Patrick please let me know if after this integration I still need to > investigate further. > > Thanks > > > > > > > -- > > David Marchand > -- Patrick Robb Technical Service Manager UNH InterOperability Laboratory 21 Madbury Rd, Suite 100, Durham, NH 03824 www.iol.unh.edu