Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-89627-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Message-ID: <269232e6-41c9-4aa1-9320-662beabcd69b@infradead.org>
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2024 16:01:30 -0800
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] kci-gitlab: Introducing GitLab-CI Pipeline for Kernel
 Testing
Content-Language: en-US
To: Guenter Roeck <groeck@google.com>,
 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Nikolai Kondrashov <spbnick@gmail.com>, Maxime Ripard
 <mripard@kernel.org>, Helen Koike <helen.koike@collabora.com>,
 linuxtv-ci@linuxtv.org, dave.pigott@collabora.com,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
 linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, gustavo.padovan@collabora.com,
 pawiecz@collabora.com, tales.aparecida@gmail.com, workflows@vger.kernel.org,
 kernelci@lists.linux.dev, skhan@linuxfoundation.org,
 kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, nfraprado@collabora.com, davidgow@google.com,
 cocci@inria.fr, Julia.Lawall@inria.fr, laura.nao@collabora.com,
 ricardo.canuelo@collabora.com, kernel@collabora.com,
 gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
References: <20240228225527.1052240-1-helen.koike@collabora.com>
 <20240228225527.1052240-2-helen.koike@collabora.com>
 <20240229-dancing-laughing-groundhog-d85161@houat>
 <5d7ed81b-37f9-48e9-ab7e-484b74ca886c@gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wixVy3WYvjbt43ZSrCqPDsS76QJQSkXFbbPsAOs1MCSAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABXOdTeT2ip1uS2EG2w8pW7254Tnd=ZDNz-KC61-G-yqDTVgJA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <CABXOdTeT2ip1uS2EG2w8pW7254Tnd=ZDNz-KC61-G-yqDTVgJA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


On 3/2/24 14:10, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 12:21 PM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 01:23, Nikolai Kondrashov <spbnick@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> However, I think a better approach would be *not* to add the .gitlab-ci.yaml
>>> file in the root of the source tree, but instead change the very same repo
>>> setting to point to a particular entry YAML, *inside* the repo (somewhere
>>> under "ci" directory) instead.
>>
>> I really don't want some kind of top-level CI for the base kernel project.
>>
>> We already have the situation that the drm people have their own ci
>> model. II'm ok with that, partly because then at least the maintainers
>> of that subsystem can agree on the rules for that one subsystem.
>>
>> I'm not at all interested in having something that people will then
>> either fight about, or - more likely - ignore, at the top level
>> because there isn't some global agreement about what the rules are.
>>
>> For example, even just running checkpatch is often a stylistic thing,
>> and not everybody agrees about all the checkpatch warnings.
>>
> 
> While checkpatch is indeed of arguable value, I think it would help a
> lot not having to bother about the persistent _build_ failures on
> 32-bit systems. You mentioned the fancy drm CI system above, but they
> don't run tests and not even test builds on 32-bit targets, which has
> repeatedly caused (and currently does cause) build failures in drm
> code when trying to build, say, arm:allmodconfig in linux-next. Most
> trivial build failures in linux-next (and, yes, sometimes mainline)
> could be prevented with a simple generic CI.

Yes, definitely. Thanks for bringing that up.

> Sure, argue against checkpatch as much as you like, but the code
> should at least _build_, and it should not be necessary for random
> people to report build failures to the submitters.

I do 110 randconfig builds nightly (10 each of 11 $ARCH/$BITS).
That's about all the horsepower that I have. and I am not a CI.  :)

So I see quite a bit of what you are saying. It seems that Arnd is
in the same boat.

-- 
#Randy