From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AE8AC433EF for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2022 12:21:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:60200 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nRCMc-0001qV-K7 for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2022 07:21:22 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:36388) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nRCEV-0006FN-Aw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2022 07:12:59 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:38155) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nRCEQ-0007jD-D9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2022 07:12:57 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1646655173; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=unTuSTXXzWyT02Kzlwcjl7PZtpXkorxxSgqu+oo86lw=; b=g003sOjABEqDe9b9I0Y/M0qdeUTDJ2Ib67Be5GMj3JzTy19cnb/+g3YTOs/M2ogdQJbpuJ iptOgkc9VIe5+w6jLddbPRKjTfjFEUKQ3qAI9XMGO9BchzlTtZzbYdIHhFPHh9dP/mtgVz 2NZkp6zhcwi7zbIbj/wDwDULLrlww+U= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-56-Stq0KI2iPXmMQVNxCaQO4A-1; Mon, 07 Mar 2022 07:12:48 -0500 X-MC-Unique: Stq0KI2iPXmMQVNxCaQO4A-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA119824FA7; Mon, 7 Mar 2022 12:12:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.33.36.133]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B4CF84943; Mon, 7 Mar 2022 12:12:44 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2022 12:12:41 +0000 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= To: Peter Maydell Subject: Re: [PULL 00/33] Abstract ArchCPU Message-ID: References: <20220306130000.8104-1-philippe.mathieu.daude@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/2.1.5 (2021-12-30) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=berrange@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=berrange@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -21 X-Spam_score: -2.2 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.082, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= Cc: Eduardo Habkost , Thomas Huth , Richard Henderson , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= , Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= , Paolo Bonzini , Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 11:51:20AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 at 21:13, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé > wrote: > > > > +Daniel/Alex > > > > On 6/3/22 20:56, Peter Maydell wrote: > > > On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 at 19:06, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé > > > wrote: > > >> I see. I only have access to aarch64 Darwin, not x86_64; I was relying > > >> on our CI for that (my GitLab CI is green). I'll work a fix, thanks. > > > > > > This was on my ad-hoc stuff -- I guess our gitlab CI for macos > > > doesn't build hvf ? > > > > No, it does: > > > > https://gitlab.com/philmd/qemu/-/jobs/2167582776#L6444 > > > > Targets and accelerators > > KVM support : NO > > HAX support : YES > > HVF support : YES > > WHPX support : NO > > NVMM support : NO > > Xen support : NO > > TCG support : YES > > > > But the Cirrus job are allowed to fail: > > Overall I am starting to feel that we should stop having > these CI jobs that are in the "allowed to fail" category. > All that happens is that they eat a lot of CPU on our CI > hosts, but they don't actually find bugs because everybody > (rightly) treats "allowed-to-fail-and-failed" as "ignore me". > I think our CI jobs should either be "must pass", or else > "run only manually", with that latter category being rarely > used and only where there's a good reason (eg somebody > specific has taken responsibility for debugging some > intermittent failure and having it still available in the > CI UI for them to trigger is helpful). The cirrus CI jobs were introduced as allow-fail as we were not sure the cirrus-run integration with gitlab would be entirely stable. There was a blip a month or so ago due to Cirrus CI breaking their REST API, but on the QEMU side we seem to be OK. So I think we can toggle the flag to make these Cirrus CI jobs gating. > Plus we really need to get on top of all the intermittent > failures. The current state of the world is that we have > some intermittents, which makes it easy for new intermittents > to get into the tree, because everybody is in the habit of > "just hit retry"... A big issue IMHO is that the pain/impact hits the wrong people. It is most seriously impacts & disrupts Peter when merging, and less impacts the subsystem maintainers, and even less the original authors. If we consider a alternative world where we used merge requests for subsystem maintainers just to send pull requests. The subsystem maintainer would open a MR and it would be their responsibility to get a green pipeline. Peter (or the person approving pulls for merge at the time) shouldn't even have to consider a MR until it has got a green pipeline. That would put the primary impact of unreliable CI onto the subsystem maintainers, blocking their work from being considered for merge. This creates a direct incentive on the subsystem maintainers to contribute to ensuring reliable CI, instead of considering it somebody else's problem. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|