netdev - Re: [ANN] intel's netdev-ci for i40e

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a29bc22b-a1e3-4a9e-a63c-5d1c71a6f08b@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2026 13:15:03 +0100
From: "Pielech, Adrian" <adrian.pielech@...el.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
	<intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
	<pabeni@...hat.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	<horms@...nel.org>, <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, <krzysztof.galazka@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [ANN] intel's netdev-ci for i40e

On 2/4/2026 4:08 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 13:35:11 +0100 Pielech, Adrian wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I'm pleased to announce that we have set up infrastructure for testing
>> netdev on our e700 NIC (i40e), which extends our current engagement with
>> e810 NICs(ice).
>>
>> This work plugs into netdev-ci initiative by netdev maintainers to run
>> kselftests against current proposed net-next-hw branch on real hardware.
>>
>> Our results are here:
>> https://netdev-ci-results.intel.com/i40e-results/results.json
>>
>> Human friendly results browser:
>> https://netdev-ci-results.intel.com/results_browser/index.html?drv=i40e
> 
> Excellent!
> 
> Looks like the GRO test result parsing is off, the test cases are
> reported as for example:
> 
> 	gro-test-lro-ipv6-ip-tos # XFAIL Device does not support...
> 
> Looks like this affects all your runners, I haven't noticed earlier.

I have fixed that, XFAIL should be reported as fail even if further
message suggests that the test should report SKIP due to "device does
not support...".

Historical results were parsed again to remove test cases:
"[...] # XFAIL [...]".