On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:17:02 +0100 Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 09:34:28AM +0200, Ioana Ciornei wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 06:25:11PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > FWIW the expectation is that the test should be able to run even on > > > systems / boards with a single interface. So the control traffic > > > (communicating with the traffic generator) will run over the same > > > interface as the test. 1% error is unachievable. I'd only check the > > > lower bound, and use some sanity value for the upper bound (2^30 ?) > > > if at all > > > > Really? I didn't know of that expectation at all. > > > > I did take ethtool_rmon.sh as an example and that selftest as well > > takes NUM_NETIFS=2 and does check for both a lower bound and upper bound > > that takes into account a 1% deviance from the target. > > > > How would the test even work with only a single interface? > > Just to add to this, for the 1% i was referring to counters for > collisions. If the control traffic is causing collisions the system it > just as wrongly configured as generated traffic causing collisions. > > For 'everyday' systems, i doubt Half Duplex is ever used, but > automotive with a T1 PHY might. So we might need to review this 1% > once somebody runs this test on such a system.
Right, right, errors and exceptions are probably fine. I was referring to checking overall byte / packet counters with 1% tolerance. Sorry if I misread the discussion or the patch.
