Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 11 May 2022 08:22:56 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
Cc:     Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>, Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run>,
        Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        freedreno <freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: Adding CI results to the kernel tree was Re: [RFC v2] drm/msm:
 Add initial ci/ subdirectory
Message-ID: <YntWQIXSqMCd6TYV@kroah.com>
References: <20220510070140.45407-1-tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com>
 <20220510141329.54414-1-tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com>
 <CAPM=9tzLR-wsLhg2ikGjoK06s-ju5XWa1rtPPiUpN=pwD1vgtA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPM=9tzLR-wsLhg2ikGjoK06s-ju5XWa1rtPPiUpN=pwD1vgtA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 03:06:47PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > And use it to store expectations about what the drm/msm driver is
> > supposed to pass in the IGT test suite.
> 
> I wanted to loop in Linus/Greg to see if there are any issues raised
> by adding CI results file to the tree in their minds, or if any other
> subsystem has done this already, and it's all fine.

Why does the results need to be added to the tree?  Shouldn't they be
either "all is good" or "constantly changing and a constant churn"?

> I think this is a good thing after our Mesa experience, but Mesa has a
> lot tighter integration here, so I want to get some more opinions
> outside the group.

For systems that have "tight integration" this might make sense as proof
that all is working for a specific commit, but I can't see how this will
help the kernel out much.

What are you going to do with these results being checked in all the
time?

thanks,

greg k-h