Hi Paolo, On 25/08/2026 15:21, Paolo Abeni wrote: > On 8/22/26 2:03 PM, Alice Mikityanska wrote: >> From: Alice Mikityanska <[email protected]> >> >> This series addresses flakiness of big_tcp_tunnels.sh discussed at: >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/[email protected]/ >> >> Lower the thresholds to avoid failures like this (number of packets >> below the threshold): >> >> https://netdev-ctrl.bots.linux.dev/logview.html?f=/logs/vmksft/net-dbg/results/754376/28-big-tcp-tunnels-sh/stdout >> >> Tweak tcp_min_tso_segs and initcwnd to avoid failures like this (BIG TCP >> doesn't kick in in slow configurations): >> >> https://netdev-ctrl.bots.linux.dev/logview.html?f=/logs/vmksft/net-dbg/results/751124/21-big-tcp-tunnels-sh/stdout >> >> v2 changes: Use $KSFT_MACHINE_SLOW instead of probing kernel config. >> >> v1: >> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/[email protected]/ > Any special reason for moving the target tree to 'net'? Selftests > stability improvements should go via the net-next tree (without the > fixes tag).
Sorry, I suggested to switch the target tree now that the selftest being fixed here has landed there. TBH, I think it is unclear what to do in this case: I agree that these modifications are not critical fixes, but they do help other people validating changes, plus they don't introduce regressions in the kernel code. If they go to net-next, that means other CIs (and developers) will potentially see false positives for ~2 months. Personnaly, I think such fixes should go to net, but that's fine if the stable team don't backport them. Cheers, Matt -- Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund.
