* Branch for kernelci [not found] <20191015202114.GA120152@google.com> @ 2019-10-15 20:52 ` Todd Kjos 2019-10-16 9:56 ` Mark Brown 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Todd Kjos @ 2019-10-15 20:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: kernelci, catalin.marinas, will Please add testing for Will Deacon's ARM64 staging tree to kernelci: [web] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git/log/?h=for-kernelci [git] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git for-kernelci It would make sense to have dashboard available as "arm64" or some other unique tree name (eg "https://kernelci.org/job/arm64"). The owners of this tree are the ARM64 maintainers: will@kernel.org and catalin.marinas@arm.com (CC'd) -Todd ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch for kernelci 2019-10-15 20:52 ` Branch for kernelci Todd Kjos @ 2019-10-16 9:56 ` Mark Brown 2019-10-16 12:38 ` Catalin Marinas 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Mark Brown @ 2019-10-16 9:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: kernelci, tkjos; +Cc: catalin.marinas, will [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 736 bytes --] On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 01:52:36PM -0700, Todd Kjos via Groups.Io wrote: > Please add testing for Will Deacon's ARM64 staging tree to kernelci: > [web] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git/log/?h=for-kernelci > [git] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git for-kernelci > It would make sense to have dashboard available as "arm64" or some > other unique tree name (eg "https://kernelci.org/job/arm64"). > The owners of this tree are the ARM64 maintainers: will@kernel.org and > catalin.marinas@arm.com (CC'd) Are you sure they are interested in this? When asked previously they indicated that they didn't see any extra value in covering their tree specifically separately to -next. [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch for kernelci 2019-10-16 9:56 ` Mark Brown @ 2019-10-16 12:38 ` Catalin Marinas 2019-10-16 12:54 ` Mark Brown 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Catalin Marinas @ 2019-10-16 12:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Brown; +Cc: kernelci, tkjos, will On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:56:36AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 01:52:36PM -0700, Todd Kjos via Groups.Io wrote: > > Please add testing for Will Deacon's ARM64 staging tree to kernelci: > > > [web] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git/log/?h=for-kernelci > > [git] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git for-kernelci > > > It would make sense to have dashboard available as "arm64" or some > > other unique tree name (eg "https://kernelci.org/job/arm64"). > > > The owners of this tree are the ARM64 maintainers: will@kernel.org and > > catalin.marinas@arm.com (CC'd) > > Are you sure they are interested in this? When asked previously they > indicated that they didn't see any extra value in covering their tree > specifically separately to -next. Will can comment on the reasoning but I guess it came as a request from him since he also created the arm64/for-kernelci branch. This might as well be the same as for-next/core but tested in isolation rather than with the whole linux-next tree. -- Catalin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch for kernelci 2019-10-16 12:38 ` Catalin Marinas @ 2019-10-16 12:54 ` Mark Brown 2019-10-16 16:46 ` Will Deacon 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Mark Brown @ 2019-10-16 12:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Catalin Marinas; +Cc: kernelci, tkjos, will [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 722 bytes --] On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:38:34PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:56:36AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > Are you sure they are interested in this? When asked previously they > > indicated that they didn't see any extra value in covering their tree > > specifically separately to -next. > Will can comment on the reasoning but I guess it came as a request from > him since he also created the arm64/for-kernelci branch. This might as > well be the same as for-next/core but tested in isolation rather than > with the whole linux-next tree. Yeah, that was what you'd both rejected doing before which was why I was surprised (plus the fact that this was coming via Todd rather than one of you). [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch for kernelci 2019-10-16 12:54 ` Mark Brown @ 2019-10-16 16:46 ` Will Deacon 2019-10-16 17:28 ` Veronika Kabatova 2019-10-22 19:53 ` Guillaume Tucker 0 siblings, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2019-10-16 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Brown; +Cc: Catalin Marinas, kernelci, tkjos On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:54:16PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:38:34PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:56:36AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > Are you sure they are interested in this? When asked previously they > > > indicated that they didn't see any extra value in covering their tree > > > specifically separately to -next. > > > Will can comment on the reasoning but I guess it came as a request from > > him since he also created the arm64/for-kernelci branch. This might as > > well be the same as for-next/core but tested in isolation rather than > > with the whole linux-next tree. > > Yeah, that was what you'd both rejected doing before which was why I was > surprised (plus the fact that this was coming via Todd rather than one > of you). I asked Todd about this yesterday because we're dealing with an ABI regression in 5.4 which wasn't picked up until -rc3, so figured that this was probably worth doing after all. Perhaps it wouldn't have helped for this specific case, but it turns out that one person's LTP isn't quite the same as another person's LTP! So yes, I'm interested in having our for-kernelci branch picked up despite not seeing the benefit in the past. Thanks, Will ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch for kernelci 2019-10-16 16:46 ` Will Deacon @ 2019-10-16 17:28 ` Veronika Kabatova 2019-10-16 23:50 ` Will Deacon 2019-10-22 19:53 ` Guillaume Tucker 1 sibling, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Veronika Kabatova @ 2019-10-16 17:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: kernelci, will; +Cc: Mark Brown, Catalin Marinas, tkjos ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org> > To: "Mark Brown" <broonie@kernel.org> > Cc: "Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, kernelci@groups.io, tkjos@google.com > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 6:46:22 PM > Subject: Re: Branch for kernelci > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:54:16PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:38:34PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:56:36AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > > > Are you sure they are interested in this? When asked previously they > > > > indicated that they didn't see any extra value in covering their tree > > > > specifically separately to -next. > > > > > Will can comment on the reasoning but I guess it came as a request from > > > him since he also created the arm64/for-kernelci branch. This might as > > > well be the same as for-next/core but tested in isolation rather than > > > with the whole linux-next tree. > > > > Yeah, that was what you'd both rejected doing before which was why I was > > surprised (plus the fact that this was coming via Todd rather than one > > of you). > > I asked Todd about this yesterday because we're dealing with an ABI > regression in 5.4 which wasn't picked up until -rc3, so figured that this > was probably worth doing after all. Perhaps it wouldn't have helped for this > specific case, but it turns out that one person's LTP isn't quite the same > as another person's LTP! > Hi, if you're mentioning the regression from this thread [0] you'd need to have the tree added to CKI, not KernelCI. Not sure if we're ready to handle mainline/next speed of development yet but we can discuss the specifics and decide based on that. The issue/PR with details be submitted here [1]. We only enabled Sasha's stable-next branch two weeks ago and openposix tests last week so we're definitely happy they are catching issues right away! We are actively collaborating with KernelCI but right now the testing systems, machine pools and testsuites are pretty much independent. > So yes, I'm interested in having our for-kernelci branch picked up despite > not seeing the benefit in the past. > Glad to see the interest for CI! Let me know if you have any questions, Veronika [0] https://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/linux-stable-mirror/2019-October/137969.html [1] https://gitlab.com/cki-project/pipeline-data > Thanks, > > Will > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch for kernelci 2019-10-16 17:28 ` Veronika Kabatova @ 2019-10-16 23:50 ` Will Deacon 2019-10-17 11:31 ` Veronika Kabatova 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2019-10-16 23:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Veronika Kabatova; +Cc: kernelci, Mark Brown, Catalin Marinas, tkjos On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:28:44PM -0400, Veronika Kabatova wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org> > > To: "Mark Brown" <broonie@kernel.org> > > Cc: "Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, kernelci@groups.io, tkjos@google.com > > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 6:46:22 PM > > Subject: Re: Branch for kernelci > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:54:16PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:38:34PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:56:36AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > > > > > Are you sure they are interested in this? When asked previously they > > > > > indicated that they didn't see any extra value in covering their tree > > > > > specifically separately to -next. > > > > > > > Will can comment on the reasoning but I guess it came as a request from > > > > him since he also created the arm64/for-kernelci branch. This might as > > > > well be the same as for-next/core but tested in isolation rather than > > > > with the whole linux-next tree. > > > > > > Yeah, that was what you'd both rejected doing before which was why I was > > > surprised (plus the fact that this was coming via Todd rather than one > > > of you). > > > > I asked Todd about this yesterday because we're dealing with an ABI > > regression in 5.4 which wasn't picked up until -rc3, so figured that this > > was probably worth doing after all. Perhaps it wouldn't have helped for this > > specific case, but it turns out that one person's LTP isn't quite the same > > as another person's LTP! > > > > if you're mentioning the regression from this thread [0] you'd need to have > the tree added to CKI, not KernelCI. Not sure if we're ready to handle > mainline/next speed of development yet but we can discuss the specifics and > decide based on that. The issue/PR with details be submitted here [1]. Hopefully the two aren't mutually exclusive, so if you're able to add the branch to CKI as well then that would be great. Will ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch for kernelci 2019-10-16 23:50 ` Will Deacon @ 2019-10-17 11:31 ` Veronika Kabatova 2019-10-17 16:02 ` Will Deacon 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Veronika Kabatova @ 2019-10-17 11:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: kernelci, will; +Cc: Mark Brown, Catalin Marinas, tkjos ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org> > To: "Veronika Kabatova" <vkabatov@redhat.com> > Cc: kernelci@groups.io, "Mark Brown" <broonie@kernel.org>, "Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, > tkjos@google.com > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 1:50:55 AM > Subject: Re: Branch for kernelci > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:28:44PM -0400, Veronika Kabatova wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org> > > > To: "Mark Brown" <broonie@kernel.org> > > > Cc: "Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, kernelci@groups.io, > > > tkjos@google.com > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 6:46:22 PM > > > Subject: Re: Branch for kernelci > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:54:16PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:38:34PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:56:36AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Are you sure they are interested in this? When asked previously > > > > > > they > > > > > > indicated that they didn't see any extra value in covering their > > > > > > tree > > > > > > specifically separately to -next. > > > > > > > > > Will can comment on the reasoning but I guess it came as a request > > > > > from > > > > > him since he also created the arm64/for-kernelci branch. This might > > > > > as > > > > > well be the same as for-next/core but tested in isolation rather than > > > > > with the whole linux-next tree. > > > > > > > > Yeah, that was what you'd both rejected doing before which was why I > > > > was > > > > surprised (plus the fact that this was coming via Todd rather than one > > > > of you). > > > > > > I asked Todd about this yesterday because we're dealing with an ABI > > > regression in 5.4 which wasn't picked up until -rc3, so figured that this > > > was probably worth doing after all. Perhaps it wouldn't have helped for > > > this > > > specific case, but it turns out that one person's LTP isn't quite the > > > same > > > as another person's LTP! > > > > > > > if you're mentioning the regression from this thread [0] you'd need to have > > the tree added to CKI, not KernelCI. Not sure if we're ready to handle > > mainline/next speed of development yet but we can discuss the specifics and > > decide based on that. The issue/PR with details be submitted here [1]. > > Hopefully the two aren't mutually exclusive, so if you're able to add the > branch to CKI as well then that would be great. > Of course not. Is testing on aarch64 sufficient or do you need other architectures too? I submitted [0] the initial config, please check if the repo and email information are correct or if we should add e.g. ARM list (didn't see it in the initial email but checking just in case). [0] https://gitlab.com/cki-project/pipeline-data/merge_requests/19/diffs Veronika > Will > > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch for kernelci 2019-10-17 11:31 ` Veronika Kabatova @ 2019-10-17 16:02 ` Will Deacon 2019-10-17 16:11 ` Mark Brown 2019-10-17 17:01 ` Veronika Kabatova 0 siblings, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2019-10-17 16:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Veronika Kabatova; +Cc: kernelci, Mark Brown, Catalin Marinas, tkjos Hi Veronika, On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 07:31:14AM -0400, Veronika Kabatova wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:28:44PM -0400, Veronika Kabatova wrote: > > > > I asked Todd about this yesterday because we're dealing with an ABI > > > > regression in 5.4 which wasn't picked up until -rc3, so figured that this > > > > was probably worth doing after all. Perhaps it wouldn't have helped for > > > > this > > > > specific case, but it turns out that one person's LTP isn't quite the > > > > same > > > > as another person's LTP! > > > > > > > > > > if you're mentioning the regression from this thread [0] you'd need to have > > > the tree added to CKI, not KernelCI. Not sure if we're ready to handle > > > mainline/next speed of development yet but we can discuss the specifics and > > > decide based on that. The issue/PR with details be submitted here [1]. > > > > Hopefully the two aren't mutually exclusive, so if you're able to add the > > branch to CKI as well then that would be great. > > > > Of course not. Is testing on aarch64 sufficient or do you need other > architectures too? Oh, good question! I suppose the two targets we care about the most are arm64 kernel with both arm64 and arm32 userspace. > I submitted [0] the initial config, please check if the repo and email > information are correct or if we should add e.g. ARM list (didn't see > it in the initial email but checking just in case). Brilliant, thanks very much. I hadn't considered adding the list, but I guess it doesn't hurt so please feel free to add linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org as well. Curious: why 'olddefconfig' instead of 'defconfig'? Are there some options required by CKI that aren't present in defconfig? Will ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch for kernelci 2019-10-17 16:02 ` Will Deacon @ 2019-10-17 16:11 ` Mark Brown 2019-10-17 17:01 ` Veronika Kabatova 1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Mark Brown @ 2019-10-17 16:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon; +Cc: Veronika Kabatova, kernelci, Catalin Marinas, tkjos [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 620 bytes --] On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 05:02:43PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > Curious: why 'olddefconfig' instead of 'defconfig'? Are there some options > required by CKI that aren't present in defconfig? In general anything that's doing runtime tests will need some extra config options to get the functionality they're trying to test enabled, for example for kselftests there's fragments in tree as tools/testing/selftests/*/config (a lot though not all of those tend to end up in defconfigs but other testsuites end up adding more). This was why Anders was looking at making allmodconfig bootable, it'd reduce the need for this. [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch for kernelci 2019-10-17 16:02 ` Will Deacon 2019-10-17 16:11 ` Mark Brown @ 2019-10-17 17:01 ` Veronika Kabatova 1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Veronika Kabatova @ 2019-10-17 17:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon; +Cc: kernelci, Mark Brown, Catalin Marinas, tkjos ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org> > To: "Veronika Kabatova" <vkabatov@redhat.com> > Cc: kernelci@groups.io, "Mark Brown" <broonie@kernel.org>, "Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, > tkjos@google.com > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 6:02:43 PM > Subject: Re: Branch for kernelci > > Hi Veronika, > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 07:31:14AM -0400, Veronika Kabatova wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:28:44PM -0400, Veronika Kabatova wrote: > > > > > I asked Todd about this yesterday because we're dealing with an ABI > > > > > regression in 5.4 which wasn't picked up until -rc3, so figured that > > > > > this > > > > > was probably worth doing after all. Perhaps it wouldn't have helped > > > > > for > > > > > this > > > > > specific case, but it turns out that one person's LTP isn't quite the > > > > > same > > > > > as another person's LTP! > > > > > > > > > > > > > if you're mentioning the regression from this thread [0] you'd need to > > > > have > > > > the tree added to CKI, not KernelCI. Not sure if we're ready to handle > > > > mainline/next speed of development yet but we can discuss the specifics > > > > and > > > > decide based on that. The issue/PR with details be submitted here [1]. > > > > > > Hopefully the two aren't mutually exclusive, so if you're able to add the > > > branch to CKI as well then that would be great. > > > > > > > Of course not. Is testing on aarch64 sufficient or do you need other > > architectures too? > > Oh, good question! I suppose the two targets we care about the most are > arm64 kernel with both arm64 and arm32 userspace. > I think we only have arm64. Thanks for answer, I'll adjust the tree config to only use aarch64 for now. > > I submitted [0] the initial config, please check if the repo and email > > information are correct or if we should add e.g. ARM list (didn't see > > it in the initial email but checking just in case). > > Brilliant, thanks very much. I hadn't considered adding the list, but I > guess it doesn't hurt so please feel free to add > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org as well. > Will add! > Curious: why 'olddefconfig' instead of 'defconfig'? Are there some options > required by CKI that aren't present in defconfig? > We're using Fedora config files with this option. I honestly don't know if there are any tests depending on it, but we are trying to build kernels close to the Fedora ones. I'll get all the CKI configs in place and the first test run should start soon after they are merged. Veronika > Will > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch for kernelci 2019-10-16 16:46 ` Will Deacon 2019-10-16 17:28 ` Veronika Kabatova @ 2019-10-22 19:53 ` Guillaume Tucker 2019-10-23 16:42 ` Will Deacon 1 sibling, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Guillaume Tucker @ 2019-10-22 19:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon; +Cc: Mark Brown, Catalin Marinas, kernelci, tkjos [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1904 bytes --] On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 5:55 PM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:54:16PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:38:34PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:56:36AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > > > Are you sure they are interested in this? When asked previously they > > > > indicated that they didn't see any extra value in covering their tree > > > > specifically separately to -next. > > > > > Will can comment on the reasoning but I guess it came as a request from > > > him since he also created the arm64/for-kernelci branch. This might as > > > well be the same as for-next/core but tested in isolation rather than > > > with the whole linux-next tree. > > > > Yeah, that was what you'd both rejected doing before which was why I was > > surprised (plus the fact that this was coming via Todd rather than one > > of you). > > I asked Todd about this yesterday because we're dealing with an ABI > regression in 5.4 which wasn't picked up until -rc3, so figured that this > was probably worth doing after all. Perhaps it wouldn't have helped for > this > specific case, but it turns out that one person's LTP isn't quite the same > as another person's LTP! > > So yes, I'm interested in having our for-kernelci branch picked up despite > not seeing the benefit in the past. > Sure, sorry for the delay in getting this sorted out. There are a few pieces of information needed in order to add a branch to kernelci.org, and to avoid repeating the same questions every time I've now made a Github issue template just for that: https://github.com/kernelci/kernelci-core/issues/new/choose Would you be so kind as to filing one of those? You'll be the first one actually using this template so I hope it'll be self-explanatory but please let us know if you have any questions or comments. Thanks, Guillaume > > > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2755 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch for kernelci 2019-10-22 19:53 ` Guillaume Tucker @ 2019-10-23 16:42 ` Will Deacon 2019-10-23 18:16 ` Guillaume Tucker 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2019-10-23 16:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Guillaume Tucker; +Cc: Mark Brown, Catalin Marinas, kernelci, tkjos Hi Guillaume, Thanks for the reply. On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 08:53:03PM +0100, Guillaume Tucker wrote: > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 5:55 PM Will Deacon <[1]will@kernel.org> wrote: > So yes, I'm interested in having our for-kernelci branch picked up > despite > not seeing the benefit in the past. > > Sure, sorry for the delay in getting this sorted out. There are > a few pieces of information needed in order to add a branch to > [2]kernelci.org, and to avoid repeating the same questions every > time I've now made a Github issue template just for that: > > [3]https://github.com/kernelci/kernelci-core/issues/new/choose > > Would you be so kind as to filing one of those? You'll be the > first one actually using this template so I hope it'll be > self-explanatory but please let us know if you have any questions > or comments. Hmm, so I don't actually have a github account anymore and it feels a bit OTT to create one just to fill in a form... Is the form accessible some other way? Will ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch for kernelci 2019-10-23 16:42 ` Will Deacon @ 2019-10-23 18:16 ` Guillaume Tucker 2019-10-25 16:01 ` Will Deacon 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Guillaume Tucker @ 2019-10-23 18:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon; +Cc: Mark Brown, Catalin Marinas, kernelci, tkjos [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1884 bytes --] On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 5:42 PM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote: > Hi Guillaume, > > Thanks for the reply. > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 08:53:03PM +0100, Guillaume Tucker wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 5:55 PM Will Deacon <[1]will@kernel.org> > wrote: > > So yes, I'm interested in having our for-kernelci branch picked up > > despite > > not seeing the benefit in the past. > > > > Sure, sorry for the delay in getting this sorted out. There are > > a few pieces of information needed in order to add a branch to > > [2]kernelci.org, and to avoid repeating the same questions every > > time I've now made a Github issue template just for that: > > > > [3]https://github.com/kernelci/kernelci-core/issues/new/choose > > > > Would you be so kind as to filing one of those? You'll be the > > first one actually using this template so I hope it'll be > > self-explanatory but please let us know if you have any questions > > or comments. > > Hmm, so I don't actually have a github account anymore and it feels a bit > OTT to create one just to fill in a form... Is the form accessible some > other way? Alright then, I'll ask you a couple of things here instead: How much build coverage do you need for your branch? Is it just for arm64, or do you need other architectures to be built as well? Do you need only the main defconfig or do you want all the variants such as allmodconfig, defconfig with big-endian... How often do you expect your branch to be updated? Every branch is monitored hourly on kernelci.org, so if it's updated less often then it's easier to cope with a larger build coverage. Which recipients should receive the email reports? The standard reports are for builds and basic tests (boot and checks for kernel errors). I guess that should be Catalin, you and linux-arm-kernel as for CKI? Guillaume [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2769 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch for kernelci 2019-10-23 18:16 ` Guillaume Tucker @ 2019-10-25 16:01 ` Will Deacon 2019-10-28 21:10 ` Guillaume Tucker 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Will Deacon @ 2019-10-25 16:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Guillaume Tucker; +Cc: Mark Brown, Catalin Marinas, kernelci, tkjos Hi Guillaume, On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 07:16:42PM +0100, Guillaume Tucker wrote: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 5:42 PM Will Deacon <[1]will@kernel.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 08:53:03PM +0100, Guillaume Tucker wrote: > > [3][4]https://github.com/kernelci/kernelci-core/issues/new/choose > > > > Would you be so kind as to filing one of those? You'll be the > > first one actually using this template so I hope it'll be > > self-explanatory but please let us know if you have any questions > > or comments. > > Hmm, so I don't actually have a github account anymore and it feels a > bit OTT to create one just to fill in a form... Is the form > accessible some other way? > > Alright then, I'll ask you a couple of things here instead: > How much build coverage do you need for your branch? Is it just > for arm64, or do you need other architectures to be built as > well? Do you need only the main defconfig or do you want all the > variants such as allmodconfig, defconfig with big-endian... arm64 only, with build coverage for allnoconfig, defconfig and allmodconfig. The boot/runtime tests only need to worry about defconfig. > How often do you expect your branch to be updated? Every branch > is monitored hourly on [5]kernelci.org, so if it's updated less > often then it's easier to cope with a larger build coverage. Hard to tell, but at most maybe once a day? > Which recipients should receive the email reports? The standard > reports are for builds and basic tests (boot and checks for > kernel errors). I guess that should be Catalin, you and > linux-arm-kernel as for CKI? Yes, please. Thanks, Will ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: Branch for kernelci 2019-10-25 16:01 ` Will Deacon @ 2019-10-28 21:10 ` Guillaume Tucker 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Guillaume Tucker @ 2019-10-28 21:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Will Deacon; +Cc: Mark Brown, Catalin Marinas, kernelci, Todd Kjos [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2587 bytes --] Hi Will, On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 5:01 PM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote: > Hi Guillaume, > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 07:16:42PM +0100, Guillaume Tucker wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 5:42 PM Will Deacon <[1]will@kernel.org> > wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 08:53:03PM +0100, Guillaume Tucker wrote: > > > [3][4] > https://github.com/kernelci/kernelci-core/issues/new/choose > > > > > > Would you be so kind as to filing one of those? You'll be the > > > first one actually using this template so I hope it'll be > > > self-explanatory but please let us know if you have any > questions > > > or comments. > > > > Hmm, so I don't actually have a github account anymore and it feels > a > > bit OTT to create one just to fill in a form... Is the form > > accessible some other way? > > > > Alright then, I'll ask you a couple of things here instead: > > How much build coverage do you need for your branch? Is it just > > for arm64, or do you need other architectures to be built as > > well? Do you need only the main defconfig or do you want all the > > variants such as allmodconfig, defconfig with big-endian... > > arm64 only, with build coverage for allnoconfig, defconfig and > allmodconfig. > The boot/runtime tests only need to worry about defconfig. > Sure. Meanwhile, we should hopefully soon have a bootable allmodconfig on arm64 using KBUILD_ALLCONFIG to pick default choices from the regular defconfig. You might be interested in that when it happens, the KernelCI parts are all in place and Anders is now on the case to make it actually work with tweaks in the defconfig. > > How often do you expect your branch to be updated? Every branch > > is monitored hourly on [5]kernelci.org, so if it's updated less > > often then it's easier to cope with a larger build coverage. > > Hard to tell, but at most maybe once a day? > That's fine, it's mostly an issue for branches that get built with the full range of combinations and new each revision produces over 200 kernels binaries... > > Which recipients should receive the email reports? The standard > > reports are for builds and basic tests (boot and checks for > > kernel errors). I guess that should be Catalin, you and > > linux-arm-kernel as for CKI? > > Yes, please. > OK here's the pull request for the record: https://github.com/kernelci/kernelci-core/pull/224 If all goes well this should be enabled later this week during the next kernelci.org update. Thanks, Guillaume [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3945 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-10-28 21:10 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <20191015202114.GA120152@google.com>
2019-10-15 20:52 ` Branch for kernelci Todd Kjos
2019-10-16 9:56 ` Mark Brown
2019-10-16 12:38 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-10-16 12:54 ` Mark Brown
2019-10-16 16:46 ` Will Deacon
2019-10-16 17:28 ` Veronika Kabatova
2019-10-16 23:50 ` Will Deacon
2019-10-17 11:31 ` Veronika Kabatova
2019-10-17 16:02 ` Will Deacon
2019-10-17 16:11 ` Mark Brown
2019-10-17 17:01 ` Veronika Kabatova
2019-10-22 19:53 ` Guillaume Tucker
2019-10-23 16:42 ` Will Deacon
2019-10-23 18:16 ` Guillaume Tucker
2019-10-25 16:01 ` Will Deacon
2019-10-28 21:10 ` Guillaume Tucker
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox