[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201125095129.47a111ff@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 09:51:29 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc: Andrea Mayer <andrea.mayer@...roma2.it>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Shrijeet Mukherjee <shrijeet@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
Stefano Salsano <stefano.salsano@...roma2.it>,
Paolo Lungaroni <paolo.lungaroni@...t.it>,
Ahmed Abdelsalam <ahabdels.dev@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next v3 0/8] seg6: add support for SRv6 End.DT4/DT6
behavior
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 10:37:20 -0700 David Ahern wrote:
> On 11/25/20 9:47 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 21:37:18 -0700 David Ahern wrote:
> >> On 11/24/20 6:58 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> >>> But it's generally not a huge issue for applying the patch. I just like
> >>> to see the build bot result, to make sure we're not adding W=1 C=1
> >>> warnings.
> >>
> >> ah, the build bot part is new. got it.
> >
> > BTW I was wondering for the longest time how to structure things so
> > that build bot can also build iproute2 in case we want to run tests
> > attached to the series and the tests depend on iproute2 changes...
> >
> > But let's cross that bridge when we get there.
>
> Why not cross it now? You handled the switch over to new a patchworks
> with a build bot, so we can take advantage of automation.
>
> Seems like the bot needs to detect 'net', 'net-next', 'bpf' and
> 'bpf-next' as they are all different trees for the kernel patches.
> iproute2 is just another tree, so it should be able to put those in a
> different bucket for automated builds - even if it means a 'set' crosses
> trees.
Actually part of the reason is that we use up 32 vCPUs just to do build
testing. I don't think we can afford to individually selftest every
series. And if we only run the tests ~nightly we can grab all
outstanding patches for iproute2 from the ML and we should be good.
At least that's my current thinking. I probably won't have time to
implement any of this until Dave is back 100% and then some, anyway ;)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists