[cip-dev] Update week 47

[cip-dev] Update week 47

[Agustin Benito Bethencourt]

Hi,

++ Meetings

* This week the team at Codethink working on CIP has met f2f for the 
first time in Manchester, since three of us work remotely from home.
** Agreed on basic management processes we will follow.
** We have worked on the roadmap for the coming weeks.
** Moved forward the work on testing.
** You can find us in IRC channel #cip in freenode.

++ Kernel maintenance

  * There is a consolidation effort of the policies that has been 
discussed in this mailing list in our public wiki[1]. Ben H. and myself 
will look into them the following days to polish them.

++ Testing

  * The testing project has been created in Gitlab. A couple of 
colleagues at Codethink has picked up the initial effort done by Siemens 
and move it forward, in order to create a virtual machine with kernelci[2].
**The goal of the first milestone is that any developer with a board at 
her desk can test a kernel and see the results of those tests in her own 
machine.
** A tutorial will be published for those of you not familiar with the 
tools involved.

If you are interested in using kernelci in your company, please join our 
effort. Collaboration is working.

++ Other topics

* The CIP whitepaper keeps moving forward.

* As reported, CIP Members took as strategic decision to use the tools 
that for each software component, each upstream community uses. I order 
to consolidate our work upstream in one place, we will use Gitlab[3].
** The Gitlab instance is up and running. Feel free to join.

Best Regards

[1] 
https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/civilinfrastructureplatform/cipkernelmaintenance
[2] https://gitlab.com/cip-project/testing/tree/master
[3] https://gitlab.com/cip-project

-- 
Agustin Benito Bethencourt
Principal Consultant - FOSS at Codethink
agustin.benito at codethink.co.uk

[cip-dev] Update week 47

[Daniel Sangorrin]

Hi,

(Cc'ed to Fuego and LTSI mailing lists).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org [mailto:cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org] On Behalf Of Agustin Benito Bethencourt
> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2016 8:17 PM
> To: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> Subject: [cip-dev] Update week 47
...
> ++ Testing
> 
>   * The testing project has been created in Gitlab. A couple of
> colleagues at Codethink has picked up the initial effort done by Siemens
> and move it forward, in order to create a virtual machine with kernelci[2].
> **The goal of the first milestone is that any developer with a board at
> her desk can test a kernel and see the results of those tests in her own
> machine.
> ** A tutorial will be published for those of you not familiar with the
> tools involved.
> 
> If you are interested in using kernelci in your company, please join our
> effort. Collaboration is working.
> [2] https://gitlab.com/cip-project/testing/tree/master

I am planning to add support for kernel-ci on Fuego (Jenkins + a bunch of tests)
using "https://ci.linaro.org/view/kernel-ci/" as a reference. That is, Fuego will git-trigger
and perform kernel builds, and then send the results to a kernel-ci server (e.g. a 
local vagrant server or https://kernelci.org) using its REST API.

My short-term vision is:

[Fuego at toshiba]
....                                   ----build results--------> [Kernel-ci at server]
[Fuego@<company X>]

Fuego can also be used for visualizing the local build results (maybe not as pretty as kernel-ci's dashboard) but 
as far as I know it doesn't have the kind of back-end API that kernel-ci has. For that reason, although for
local testing Fuego is enough, we need a way to publish the results (mostly so that
maintainers can see them).

However, my long-term vision would be:

[Fuego at toshiba]
....                                   ----build/boot/LTP/Cyclictest/other_tests results--------> [Fuego OR modified kernel-ci at server]
[Fuego@<company X>]

In other words, Build and Boot tests are good but not enough. There are many other tests that we
want to run (e.g. tests in Fuego for both the kernel and the root filesystem).  I can see at least two options 
for implementing that:
   Option 1: Extend kernel-ci to support other type of tests.
   Option 2: Add a backend REST API to Fuego similar to the one kernel-ci has.

Any feedback would be welcome.

Best regards,
Daniel

[1] http://bird.org/ffiles/Introduction-to-Fuego-LCJ-2016.pdf

[cip-dev] [Fuego] Update week 47

[Bird, Timothy]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: fuego-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org [mailto:fuego-
> bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Sangorrin
> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 12:29 PM
> To: 'Agustin Benito Bethencourt' <agustin.benito@codethink.co.uk>; cip-
> dev at lists.cip-project.org
> Cc: ltsi-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org; fuego at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: [Fuego] [cip-dev] Update week 47
> 
> Hi,
> 
> (Cc'ed to Fuego and LTSI mailing lists).
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cip-dev-bounces at lists.cip-project.org [mailto:cip-dev-
> bounces at lists.cip-project.org] On Behalf Of Agustin Benito Bethencourt
> > Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2016 8:17 PM
> > To: cip-dev at lists.cip-project.org
> > Subject: [cip-dev] Update week 47
> ...
> > ++ Testing
> >
> >   * The testing project has been created in Gitlab. A couple of
> > colleagues at Codethink has picked up the initial effort done by Siemens
> > and move it forward, in order to create a virtual machine with kernelci[2].
> > **The goal of the first milestone is that any developer with a board at
> > her desk can test a kernel and see the results of those tests in her own
> > machine.
> > ** A tutorial will be published for those of you not familiar with the
> > tools involved.
> >
> > If you are interested in using kernelci in your company, please join our
> > effort. Collaboration is working.
> > [2] https://gitlab.com/cip-project/testing/tree/master
> 
> I am planning to add support for kernel-ci on Fuego (Jenkins + a bunch of
> tests)
> using "https://ci.linaro.org/view/kernel-ci/" as a reference. That is, Fuego will
> git-trigger
> and perform kernel builds, and then send the results to a kernel-ci server
> (e.g. a
> local vagrant server or https://kernelci.org) using its REST API.
> 
> My short-term vision is:
> 
> [Fuego at toshiba]
> ....                                   ----build results--------> [Kernel-ci at server]
> [Fuego@<company X>]
> 
> Fuego can also be used for visualizing the local build results (maybe not as
> pretty as kernel-ci's dashboard) but
> as far as I know it doesn't have the kind of back-end API that kernel-ci has.
> For that reason, although for
> local testing Fuego is enough, we need a way to publish the results (mostly
> so that
> maintainers can see them).
> 
> However, my long-term vision would be:
> 
> [Fuego at toshiba]
> ....                                   ----build/boot/LTP/Cyclictest/other_tests results-------->
> [Fuego OR modified kernel-ci at server]
> [Fuego@<company X>]
> 
> In other words, Build and Boot tests are good but not enough. There are
> many other tests that we
> want to run (e.g. tests in Fuego for both the kernel and the root filesystem).
> I can see at least two options
> for implementing that:
>    Option 1: Extend kernel-ci to support other type of tests.
>    Option 2: Add a backend REST API to Fuego similar to the one kernel-ci has.
> 
> Any feedback would be welcome.

This sounds really great.

I would really like to see how the two systems (kernelci and fuego) could be
integrated, so I am interested in this work.  I see kernelci and fuego as complementary.
That's why I'm focusing on the runtime aspects of Fuego, and not on the
build/boot tests, at the moment.

If we extend kernel-ci to support other types of tests, it would be nice if
there were some ability to reuse aspects of fuego test definitions there.

I got together with Fenguang Wu (the author of the 0day test project) at plumbers,
and found that 0day and Fuego has some very similar concepts, and we might
be able to share some materials.  0day is missing visualization tools for results,
and doesn't support the  notion of cross-compilation yet.  But they have similar
test phases (download, build, deploy, test, gather logs, parse results).  For an initial
attempt at writing a standard test API, I was hoping I could find enough common
ground between 0day and Fuego to support the same test collateral between the
two systems.  From what I have seen so far, the test API for LAVA (which kernelci
is based on) also has some similar concepts, but they haven't gotten around
to formalizing the API in a way that could be used as the common shared API
with multiple systems.

Regards,
 -- Tim