Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-117910-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
From: =?utf-8?B?QmrDtnJuIFTDtnBlbA==?= <bjorn@kernel.org>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>, Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, Daniel Borkmann
 <daniel@iogearbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, Martin KaFai
 Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>, Song Liu
 <song@kernel.org>, Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>, John Fastabend
 <john.fastabend@gmail.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>, Stanislav
 Fomichev <sdf@google.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>, Jiri Olsa
 <jolsa@kernel.org>, Luke Nelson <luke.r.nels@gmail.com>, Xi Wang
 <xi.wang@gmail.com>, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>, Palmer
 Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>, Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
 bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pu Lehui <pulehui@huaweicloud.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/2] bpf,riscv: Implement
 bpf_addr_space_cast instruction
In-Reply-To: <20240325-perpetual-liking-25f26e485b65@spud>
References: <20240325155434.65589-1-puranjay12@gmail.com>
 <20240325155434.65589-3-puranjay12@gmail.com>
 <20240325-nineteen-unvaried-cb5cb5fd3a73@spud>
 <CANk7y0gWtwN7EJ24aoY9-RB9629d5Ks-9fMc3wnAAjjERcZhFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240325-perpetual-liking-25f26e485b65@spud>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:15:35 +0100
Message-ID: <87il1a3w60.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org> writes:

> Bjorn, do you think there's anything we can do about these kinda
> misleading CI failures for bpf stuff? Some stuff that touches bpf
> definitely is worth us building, but should we try and build it on top
> of the bpf tree instead?

IMO: The way to go is enabling RV support in the BPF CI (I'll expand on
this in Puranjay's later mail), and ignore BPF series for the RV
patchwork CI. I think having multiple trees in the RV CI is not worth
the pain...

Sort of related is that I think it could be worthwhile only building
series that had some human interaction (a pair of eyes -- "yes, this
does make sense to build"). Right now we're just building everything,
and we have to pay (money *and* time) for it.

..and then the BPF series would e.g. not be built at the RV PW CI.


(But mostly me thinking out loud! ;-))
Bj=C3=B6rn