I really don't get any anyone in their right mind would do this other than an experiment to say they can/did. Host ethernet chaining is not what (Rapid) Spanning Tree Protocol was designed for, and with modern (or old) switching, there is no reason to. As a network engineer for 20 years, it offends certain sensibilities as something you should never do.
There is a reason people have been using ethernet hubs/switches for 30 years now - speed and simplicity. If you walked into any sort of enterprise or business with any network knowledge and proposed that, someone might just fire you.
Switches are designed to forward quickly and effectively, some as low as 350 down to 8 nano seconds these days with special nics, Even a server cpu bridging at a kernel level will *never* do so as quickly as that, particularly cumulative latency in a chain. Servers that do have more than one nic certainly aren't intended to be daisy-chained, rather they home each nic to multiple vlan segments, or they aggregate nics as active/passive or active/active link aggregation to multiple switches (redundancy). Hosts as a rule should NEVER talk spanning-tree, only switch to switch.
Just... don't ever chain hosts like that, particularly not if said client is paying you for a network solution. Get a switch or multiple with as many ports as you need. Ebay is always good for slightly older kit, and just get a spare to keep around just in case.
If you're *that* interested in networking to build that sort of science experiment, pick up a CCNA switching book to learn why you're barking up the wrong tree.
-mb