On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 07:16:49PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:21:17 -0700 Bobby Eshleman wrote: > > From: Bobby Eshleman <[email protected]> > > > > Add a new devmem test case for binding the dmabuf with rx-page-size=16K. > > The test sweeps RX payload sizes straddling the niov boundary to cover > > the sub-niov, exact-niov, and multi-niov RX paths. > > > > Silence pylint invalid-name (`with open() as f`) and too-many-arguments > > (ncdevmem_rx grew to 6 args) at file scope. > > > > Signed-off-by: Bobby Eshleman <[email protected]> > > Acked-by: Stanislav Fomichev <[email protected]> > > Hm, odd. In NIPA we're getting: > > TAP version 13 > 1..1 > # timeout set to 0 > # selftests: drivers/net/hw: devmem.py > # TAP version 13 > # 1..5 > # ok 1 devmem.check_rx # SKIP marked as disruptive > # ok 2 devmem.check_tx # SKIP marked as disruptive > # ok 3 devmem.check_tx_chunks # SKIP marked as disruptive > # ok 4 devmem.check_rx_hds # SKIP Test requires devmem support > # ok 5 devmem.check_rx_large_niov # SKIP Test requires devmem support > # # Totals: pass:0 fail:0 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:5 error:0 > ok 1 selftests: drivers/net/hw: devmem.py > # Totals: pass:1 fail:0 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0 > > https://netdev.bots.linux.dev/logs/hwksft/BCM57508/results/755681/config > driver: bnxt > fw: 237.1.148.0 > > Any idea?
Poking around, it looks like 231.1.167.0 and above should support everything, so fw should be okay AFAICT. Looks like the config is missing CONFIG_NET_DEVMEM and CONFIG_UDMABUF? Sorry, took me a while... was certain it was a bug in my code. Not the failure here, but wondering if this was on ARM led to seeing that 16K hardcoded rx_page_size in run_rx_large_niov() may fail on ARM with 64K pages because it will fail the IS_ALIGN(16K, 64K) check... Best, Bobby
