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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220510070140.45407-1-tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com>
 <20220510141329.54414-1-tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com> <CAPM=9tzLR-wsLhg2ikGjoK06s-ju5XWa1rtPPiUpN=pwD1vgtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wg8YgH1h3wrm9CtXff7rSewa+NE0Z5upb1GOE8XiTL9HA@mail.gmail.com> <CAF6AEGusO9XAqHNatJLgV+wpVoyyLg1vHtUsnSkAxJeV7n3WNg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF6AEGusO9XAqHNatJLgV+wpVoyyLg1vHtUsnSkAxJeV7n3WNg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 11 May 2022 12:08:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjbE0f2AGroB1Hy=fx2fh7cRpS0wNdB46Ybk14Mb0b5Jw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Adding CI results to the kernel tree was Re: [RFC v2] drm/msm:
 Add initial ci/ subdirectory
To:     Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>
Cc:     Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>,
        Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.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>, 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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 11:40 AM Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It is missing in this revision of the RFC, but the intention is to
> have the gitlab-ci.yml point to a specific commit SHA in the
> gfx-ci/drm-ci[1] tree, to solve the problem of keeping the results in
> sync with the expectations.  Ie. a kernel commit would control moving
> to a new version of i-g-t (and eventually deqp and/or piglit), and at
> the same time make any necessary updates in the expectations files.

Wouldn't it then be better to just have the expectation files in the
ci tree too?

The kernel tree might have just the expected *failures* listed, if
there are any. Presumably the ci tree has to have the expected results
anyway, so what's the advantage of listing non-failures?

                  Linus