[Intel-wired-lan] sr-iov related bonding regression (two regressions in one report)

[Anil Choudhary]

Its not hardware issue when I do rmmod iavf ping started working .
So issue is certainly in this kernel and with sriov only
Iavf id Nic driver for VF(sriovnic)


Thanks,
Anil

> On Nov 14, 2023, at 9:50 PM, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) <regressions at leemhuis.info> wrote:
> 
> On 15.11.23 01:54, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>> Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I come across LACP bonding regression on Bugzilla [1].
> 
> Side note: Stephen forwards some (all?) network regressions to the right
> people:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231113083746.5e02f8b0@hermes.local/
> 
> Would be best to check for that, no need to forward things twice, that
> just results in a mess.
> 
>>> The reporter
>>> (Cc'ed) has two regressions. The first is actual LACP bonding
>>> regression (but terse):
>>> 
>>>> Till linkx kernel 6.5.7 it is working fine, but after upgrading to 6.6.1 ping stop working with LACP bonding.
>>>> When we disable SR-IOV from bios , everything working fine
> 
> Makes me wonder if things have been working with or without the OOT
> module on 6.5.7, as strictly speaking it's only considered a kernel
> regression if thing worked with a vanilla kernel (e.g. without OOT
> modules) beforehand and broke when switching to a newer vanilla kernel.
> If that's the case it would be okay to add to regzbot.
> 
>>> And the second is out-of-tree module FTBFS:
>> [... skip OOT stuff ...]
>> 
>>> Should I add the first regression to regzbot (since the second one
>>> is obviously out-of-tree problem), or should I asked detailed regression
>>> info to the reporter?
>> 
>> 	My vote is to get additional information.  Given the nature of
>> the workaround ("When we disable SR-IOV from bios , everything working
>> fine"), it's plausible that the underlying cause is something
>> platform-specific.
> 
> Maybe, but when it comes to the "no regressions" rule that likely makes
> no difference from Linus perspective.
> 
> But I guess unless the intel folks or someone else has an idea what
> might be wrong here we likely need a bisection (with vanilla kernels of
> course) to get anywhere.
> 
> Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
> --
> Everything you wanna know about Linux kernel regression tracking:
> https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/about/#tldr
> If I did something stupid, please tell me, as explained on that page.