| Message ID | 20240701225349.3395580-3-zijianzhang@bytedance.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Delegated to: | Netdev Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | fix OOM and order check in msg_zerocopy selftest | expand |
zijianzhang@ wrote: > From: Zijian Zhang <zijianzhang@bytedance.com> > > We find that when lock debugging is on, notifications may not come in > order. Thus, we have order checking outputs managed by cfg_verbose, to > avoid too many outputs in this case. > > Fixes: 07b65c5b31ce ("test: add msg_zerocopy test") > Signed-off-by: Zijian Zhang <zijianzhang@bytedance.com> > Signed-off-by: Xiaochun Lu <xiaochun.lu@bytedance.com> Why did you split this trivial change out? Anyway.. Reviewed-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>
On 7/2/24 6:18 AM, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > zijianzhang@ wrote: >> From: Zijian Zhang <zijianzhang@bytedance.com> >> >> We find that when lock debugging is on, notifications may not come in >> order. Thus, we have order checking outputs managed by cfg_verbose, to >> avoid too many outputs in this case. >> >> Fixes: 07b65c5b31ce ("test: add msg_zerocopy test") >> Signed-off-by: Zijian Zhang <zijianzhang@bytedance.com> >> Signed-off-by: Xiaochun Lu <xiaochun.lu@bytedance.com> > > Why did you split this trivial change out? Anyway.. > > Reviewed-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com> > > I am also conflicted, this change is trivial, but I think it's unrelated to OOM, thus split it out. Sorry for the confusion, I'll be careful next time. Thanks for the reviewing and quick reply :)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/msg_zerocopy.c b/tools/testing/selftests/net/msg_zerocopy.c index 926556febc83..7ea5fb28c93d 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/msg_zerocopy.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/msg_zerocopy.c @@ -438,7 +438,7 @@ static bool do_recv_completion(int fd, int domain) /* Detect notification gaps. These should not happen often, if at all. * Gaps can occur due to drops, reordering and retransmissions. */ - if (lo != next_completion) + if (cfg_verbose && lo != next_completion) fprintf(stderr, "gap: %u..%u does not append to %u\n", lo, hi, next_completion); next_completion = hi + 1;