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> <CAHk-=wjbE0f2AGroB1Hy=fx2fh7cRpS0wNdB46Ybk14Mb0b5Jw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wjbE0f2AGroB1Hy=fx2fh7cRpS0wNdB46Ybk14Mb0b5Jw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 11 May 2022 12:12:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjy4DY_ya8TBs9W2wLWHibBiHMQW2T43DQR1SGRkqD=gw@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 12:08 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> 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?

.. put another way: I think a list of "we are aware that these
currently fail" is quite reasonable for a development tree, maybe even
with a comment in the commit that created them about why they
currently fail.

That also ends up being very nice if you fix a problem, and the fix
commit might then remove the failure for the list, and that all makes
perfect sense.

But having just the raw output of "these are the expected CI results"
that is being done and specified by some other tree entirely - that
seems pointless and just noise to me. There's no actual reason to have
that kind of noise - and update that kind of noise - that I really
see.

                Linus