From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55066) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eMMqw-0006ew-Th for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 05 Dec 2017 18:42:20 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eMMqv-0003p1-MW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 05 Dec 2017 18:42:18 -0500 Received: from ozlabs.org ([2401:3900:2:1::2]:60733) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eMMqu-0003o5-Ux for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 05 Dec 2017 18:42:17 -0500 Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 10:14:27 +1100 From: David Gibson Message-ID: <20171205231427.GO3057@umbus.fritz.box> References: <20171129084628.12336-1-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> <151194617493.816.13426298875361921541@bafd83ae6430> <20171129091847.GC12220@lemon> <20171205064753-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20171205050558.GA31705@lemon> <20171205051151.GF3057@umbus.fritz.box> <20171205064635.GB31705@lemon> <20171205130636.GN3057@umbus.fritz.box> <20171205134207.GD31705@lemon> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2/+Vq7w28QOSGzSM" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171205134207.GD31705@lemon> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [for-2.12 0/7] PCI cleanups List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Fam Zheng Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , marcel@redhat.com, imammedo@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, ehabkost@redhat.com --2/+Vq7w28QOSGzSM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:42:07PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote: > On Wed, 12/06 00:06, David Gibson wrote: > > > > Another approach would be to have a "known good" build that runs ev= ery > > > > so often. If the known good build fails, the bot disables itself (= and > > > > tells you to investigate). Obviously there are ways that could not > > > > work as well, but it should catch a fair range of spurious failures. > > >=20 > > > Interesting idea, yes. A slightly simplified way is to test the "base= " of the > > > series and only report errors if the base can pass. > >=20 > > Right. I think that would catch even more cases, but means doing the > > "base" build every time, which might slow things down significantly. >=20 > Every time when a test on topic branch failed, but not necessarily when it > passed, which is not that bad. True. Sounds promising. --=20 David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson --2/+Vq7w28QOSGzSM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEdfRlhq5hpmzETofcbDjKyiDZs5IFAlonKFMACgkQbDjKyiDZ s5IeZg//dkHnIdbClC088TupTVC5VU1troQGF8QKtzUmSW9qJt4m1zEICwYomZE+ 2UIkHYSgTNoZviaVgcCADuIh/NJT04OKFSY77yx+GeEV6qPmFt9ONx3IriOxTMvu u7sZmSBJnpnVk1J8cM4OxrLJJ/zNtYk2P+IN9ffckY18bp/MJQ8Qbo3xgRC0iSZU 7F+MZp5ir8t2z312Elbg9Yc6ggz2V3bYb7EO/B6s/siUg7Rl2MvfTguYOxQdvWoG Qf9Hsl3EfU1h3JyUyAL/ajYHVhrk2J7wrmHnKkKjvCEfYt/BViWe0PBQCM5irZrr RFABWRVgGW0uK4KknnmQ6WMZfSM0sy747g9q12/DRvnD/N3oyMu+wO5VSo5OFn59 TLxCrNNIX2vDgyMUHOa+Tsjdp3MJZNXdt7XF3Y15RLAVN8075gXFbVwVN1nvf6Qw cl2PN2pWcx/L51p8ANTa7u7I4KWMbk0EFPtoS6c55BSxuUmmyLNeYplSDEerB8zE ALAbHwErPutEdn2P2ZZpbmb0vo3INKcAY314CsbVXmWPtIdp+YfOBg1HC/KcR1Bd dB+ztgafaHMLrJS43ejZ+HC3XcMuOQ0w5bL6g2cI5LcrEXj52f3ISNGElpZVC+/P e+gqu9azs3rcfvxqgC3URQ0Jx68plQOgXNtxJ3wfgYEHYJkrSo0= =FTWk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --2/+Vq7w28QOSGzSM--