From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C084A04FD; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 16:08:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E29C74068B; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 16:08:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03E6C40689 for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 16:08:35 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1649340515; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=9Ledl5VFUFcTViByJYDAULoy/aqfyO9hGBWbmOBP1HQ=; b=AibaWAGLZN70adDkC7RfbB7t7D9pioyuMEKTpITygLb09uY8WAYsDKs0H706Ms6VWUurSm lBFBONdM+kwzqNhqveSzC4Np6Kric60Mes1sejYTc/LtnYKz0JLndf8Yr9Ps/huVoRGhdb 73zDZSutx3V3WmK5IlxuMJY6nx2OQyc= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-593-BPFUrBkDMlaA1AUfE6WSaQ-1; Thu, 07 Apr 2022 10:08:32 -0400 X-MC-Unique: BPFUrBkDMlaA1AUfE6WSaQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7700185A7A4; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 14:08:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from RHTPC1VM0NT (unknown [10.22.17.196]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A423B40CFD02; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 14:08:31 +0000 (UTC) From: Aaron Conole To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" Cc: Huichao Cai , "dev@dpdk.org" , ci@iol.unh.edu, lylavoie@iol.unh.edu Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] ip_frag: add IPv4 options fragment and test data References: <1647328926-17118-1-git-send-email-chcchc88@163.com> <1647918560-14165-1-git-send-email-chcchc88@163.com> <2a44a16d.7a2.17ffc770298.Coremail.chcchc88@163.com> Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 10:08:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Konstantin Ananyev's message of "Wed, 6 Apr 2022 16:47:21 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.11.54.1 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=aconole@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Hi, "Ananyev, Konstantin" writes: > Hi Huichao, > > =20 > > In general yes, it is developer responsibility to address any issues with= his/her patches. +1 > In that particular case, looking at the logs, it seems to be some misconf= iguration > > on test-machine not related anyhow to your changes. > > BTW, there are few similar failures with other patches at about the same = date: > > https://lab.dpdk.org/results/dashboard/patchsets/21562/ > > https://lab.dpdk.org/results/dashboard/patchsets/21546/ > > Which again, makes me think that it is just a tesc-config related failur= e. > > What is the best way to deal with it? Agreed. I've CC'd UNH lab, but in this case I think these are the BRCM managed systems. > Probably the easiest and safest thing =E2=80=93 to resubmit the patch to = force > > another run of test harness. > > Aaron, is there any better way to deal with it? At the moment, no. We do have an effort for resubmits to be requested - but that hasn't been completed yet. > Thanks > > Konstantin > > =20 > > =20 > > From: Huichao Cai =20 > Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 2:22 AM > To: Ananyev, Konstantin > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re:RE: [PATCH v5] ip_frag: add IPv4 options fragment and test da= ta > > =20 > > Hi Konstantin, > > =20 > > This patch has a test case failure:ci/iol-broadcom-Functional. > > Failed Tests: > > - mtu_update > > - scatter > > The same goes for many other patches,Do I need to deal with it, how to de= al with it? > > =20 > > Huichao,Cai