From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44928) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dazXY-0004bN-MO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 03:18:29 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dazXV-0003e2-IB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 03:18:28 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35460) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dazXV-0003dL-CM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2017 03:18:25 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 09:18:18 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck Message-ID: <20170728091818.3f96ae91@gondolin> In-Reply-To: <20170728063337.GR5117@lemon.lan> References: <20170717063521.GA7393@lemon> <20170728063337.GR5117@lemon.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Status and RFC of patchew testings on QEMU List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Fam Zheng Cc: Philippe =?UTF-8?B?TWF0aGlldS1EYXVkw6k=?= , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:33:37 +0800 Fam Zheng wrote: > On Fri, 07/28 02:46, Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 wrote: > > Hi Fam, > >=20 > > On 07/17/2017 03:35 AM, Fam Zheng wrote: =20 > > > So far we have these tests running by patchew on each patch series: > > >=20 > > > * Docker tests > > > Basically it is > > > make docker-test-quick@centos6 \ > > > docker-test-build@min-glib \ > > > docker-test-mingw@fedora" > > >=20 > > > * checkpatch.pl > > > Each patch is fed to ./scripts/checkpatch.pl and all errors are = reported. > > >=20 > > > * s390x > > > It runs on a machine shared by Fedora team, basically only "./co= nfigure and > > > make", because "make check" hanging is tricky to deal with from = an > > > automation perspective. (Ideas?) > > >=20 > > > * FreeBSD > > > Like s390x. > > > =20 > > [...] =20 > > > Q4: Any other improvements/features you want? (E.g. some documentatio= n? :) =20 > >=20 > > I'm unsure if someone already asked about it, but is it possible to sor= t the > > tests, like: > > - fastest/cheapest > > - more likely to fail > > - ... > > - scarce resources at last > >=20 > > And abort/send report on first failure. =20 >=20 > Different hosts run tests in parallel, currently they are three: FreeBSD,= Fedora > s390 and Fedora x86_64, and there isn't a strict order between them. >=20 > Also I'm not sure it's a good idea to _not_ run build tests if checkpatch= test > fails. Especially as sometimes checkpatch.pl reports things that can be overridden by the maintainer with a good conscience. Generally, I find it useful to get *all* problems instead of playing whack-a-mole. >=20 > One thing I agree is that checkpatch reports should be generated as > soon as possible, which is not the case at the moment. Thanks. +1