linux-kernel - Re: [Freedreno] Adding CI results to the kernel tree was Re: [RFC v2] drm/msm: Add initial ci/ subdirectory

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAF6AEGtWCkOv4xpWz+ds9fSiB4_W4CV9exYyus1G_-crD2YFGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 May 2022 13:14:24 -0700
From:   Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>,
        freedreno <freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
        Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [Freedreno] Adding CI results to the kernel tree was Re: [RFC v2]
 drm/msm: Add initial ci/ subdirectory

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 12:12 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 12:08 PM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > The kernel tree might have just the expected *failures* listed, if
> > there are any. Presumably the ci tree has to have the expected results
> > anyway, so what's the advantage of listing non-failures?
>
> .. put another way: I think a list of "we are aware that these
> currently fail" is quite reasonable for a development tree, maybe even
> with a comment in the commit that created them about why they
> currently fail.
>
> That also ends up being very nice if you fix a problem, and the fix
> commit might then remove the failure for the list, and that all makes
> perfect sense.
>
> But having just the raw output of "these are the expected CI results"
> that is being done and specified by some other tree entirely - that
> seems pointless and just noise to me. There's no actual reason to have
> that kind of noise - and update that kind of noise - that I really
> see.

Yeah, the only reason we have full results is that the current tool to
check for pass/fail of the entire CI job is 'diff' ;-)

It has the nice benefit of generating a patch for you to squash into
whatever commit to update the expectation files, I suppose.  But we
have something more clever on the mesa-ci side of things where we list
skips/flakes/expected-fails but not expected-passes.  To be fair, the
# of tests on the mesa side is something on the order of 750,000, I
don't expect to ever get close to that # on the kernel side.

BR,
-R

>
>                 Linus