From: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
To: "Peter Maydell" <peter.maydell@linaro.org>,
"Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>
Cc: "Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>,
"QEMU Developers" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
"Richard Henderson" <richard.henderson@linaro.org>,
"Kevin Wolf" <kwolf@redhat.com>, "John Snow" <jsnow@redhat.com>,
"Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@linaro.org>,
"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: no more pullreq processing til February
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2023 19:17:52 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <088a1c95-5332-d120-8917-1aa52c929da9@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA95Vtn5smOmVTX+WbS9O1Z4WX4H_p6j5iFh338o=Xcp5Q@mail.gmail.com>
On 26/01/2023 15.41, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 at 14:35, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
>> I'm confident we can rationalize our jobs, especially the cross
>> compilation ones.
>>
>> For each non-x86 arch we've got two sets of jobs, one for system
>> emulators and one for user emulators.
>>
>> IMHO the most interesting part of non-x86 testing is the TCG
>> host target. We don't need 2 jobs to cover that, either system
>> or user emulators would cover TCG build / test. Most of the rest
>> of code is not heavily host arch dependant.
>
> I'm not super enthusiastic about cutting this down.
> I find the non-x86 testing is the most interesting part
> of the CI -- most patch submitters and system submaintainers
> have already done local compile-and-build with the common
> x86_64 recent-distro target, so those parts pretty much
> always succeed. The benefit of the auto CI is in keeping
> the platforms that aren't so widely used by developers
> working (both different-host-arch and different-OS).
I mostly agree. Question is whether we really need all of them, e.g. do we
really need both, the *-armel and the *-armhf jobs for both, the -user and
the -system part? Or would it be still ok to e.g. only have a -armel-user
and a -armhf-system job and drop the other two?
I think there are also other possibilities where we could cut down CI
minutes, e.g.:
- Avoid that some of the -softmmu targets get build multiple
times
- Re-arrange the Avocodo jobs: We should maybe rather sort them
by target system instead of host distro to avoid that some
targets get tested twice here.
- Do we really need Linux-based clang jobs if we test Clang
compilation with macOS and FreeBSD, too?
- Would it be OK to merge the merge the build-without-default-
devices and build-without-default-features jobs?
And after all, I'd like to raise one question again: Could we finally stop
supporting 32-bit hosts? ... that would really help to get rid of both, some
CI minutes and some maintainer burden.
Thomas
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-26 18:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-26 13:22 no more pullreq processing til February Peter Maydell
2023-01-26 13:52 ` Eldon Stegall
2023-01-26 14:13 ` Alex Bennée
2023-01-26 14:27 ` Peter Maydell
2023-01-26 14:38 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2023-01-26 18:41 ` Eldon Stegall
2023-01-27 9:53 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2023-01-26 14:18 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2023-01-26 14:30 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2023-01-27 8:50 ` Gerd Hoffmann
2023-01-26 13:57 ` Alex Bennée
2023-01-26 14:07 ` Daniel Henrique Barboza
2023-01-26 14:27 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2023-01-26 14:35 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2023-01-26 14:41 ` Peter Maydell
2023-01-26 18:17 ` Thomas Huth [this message]
2023-01-26 20:49 ` Alex Bennée
2023-01-26 14:25 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2023-01-26 14:28 ` Peter Maydell
2023-01-27 7:36 ` Thomas Huth
2023-01-27 12:39 ` Kevin Wolf
2023-01-27 12:47 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2023-01-27 13:11 ` Peter Maydell
2023-01-27 13:12 ` Peter Maydell
2023-02-01 16:18 ` Peter Maydell
2023-01-27 9:30 ` Markus Armbruster
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=088a1c95-5332-d120-8917-1aa52c929da9@redhat.com \
--to=thuth@redhat.com \
--cc=alex.bennee@linaro.org \
--cc=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=jsnow@redhat.com \
--cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=philmd@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=richard.henderson@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).