Message-ID: <51fa8932e57010620e9a9e16a1979f4883e95a7d.camel@collabora.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 11:28:48 -0500
From: Nicolas Dufresne <nicolas.dufresne@...labora.com>
To: Nikolai Kondrashov <spbnick@...il.com>, Guillaume Tucker
 <gtucker@...cker.io>, Helen Koike <helen.koike@...labora.com>, 
 linuxtv-ci@...uxtv.org, dave.pigott@...labora.com, mripard@...nel.org, 
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, 
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, gustavo.padovan@...labora.com, 
 pawiecz@...labora.com, tales.aparecida@...il.com,
 workflows@...r.kernel.org,  kernelci@...ts.linux.dev,
 skhan@...uxfoundation.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, 
 nfraprado@...labora.com, davidgow@...gle.com, cocci@...ia.fr, 
 Julia.Lawall@...ia.fr, laura.nao@...labora.com,
 ricardo.canuelo@...labora.com,  kernel@...labora.com,
 torvalds@...uxfoundation.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] kci-gitlab: Introducing GitLab-CI Pipeline for
 Kernel Testing

Hi,

Le jeudi 29 février 2024 à 16:16 +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov a écrit :
> On 2/29/24 2:20 PM, Guillaume Tucker wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > On 28/02/2024 23:55, Helen Koike wrote:
> > > Dear Kernel Community,
> > > 
> > > This patch introduces a `.gitlab-ci` file along with a `ci/` folder, defining a
> > > basic test pipeline triggered by code pushes to a GitLab-CI instance. This
> > > initial version includes static checks (checkpatch and smatch for now) and build
> > > tests across various architectures and configurations. It leverages an
> > > integrated cache for efficient build times and introduces a flexible 'scenarios'
> > > mechanism for subsystem-specific extensions.
> > 
> > This sounds like a nice starting point to me as an additional way
> > to run tests upstream.  I have one particular question as I see a
> > pattern through the rest of the email, please see below.
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > 4. **Collaborative Testing Environment:** The kernel community is already
> > > engaged in numerous testing efforts, including various GitLab-CI pipelines such
> > > as DRM-CI, which I maintain, along with other solutions like KernelCI and
> > > BPF-CI. This proposal is designed to further stimulate contributions to the
> > > evolving testing landscape. Our goal is to establish a comprehensive suite of
> > > common tools and files.
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > **Leveraging External Test Labs:**
> > > We can extend our testing to external labs, similar to what DRM-CI currently
> > > does. This includes:
> > > - Lava labs
> > > - Bare metal labs
> > > - Using KernelCI-provided labs
> > > 
> > > **Other integrations**
> > > - Submit results to KCIDB
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > **Join Our Slack Channel:**
> > > We have a Slack channel, #gitlab-ci, on the KernelCI Slack instance https://kernelci.slack.com/ .
> > > Feel free to join and contribute to the conversation. The KernelCI team has
> > > weekly calls where we also discuss the GitLab-CI pipeline.
> > > 
> > > **Acknowledgments:**
> > > A special thanks to Nikolai Kondrashov, Tales da Aparecida - both from Red Hat -
> > > and KernelCI community for their valuable feedback and support in this proposal.
> > 
> > Where does this fit on the KernelCI roadmap?
> > 
> > I see it mentioned a few times but it's not entirely clear
> > whether this initiative is an independent one or in some way
> > linked to KernelCI.  Say, are you planning to use the kci tool,
> > new API, compiler toolchains, user-space and Docker images etc?
> > Or, are KernelCI plans evolving to follow this move?
> 
> I would say this is an important part of KernelCI the project, considering its 
> aim to improve testing and CI in the kernel. It's not a part of KernelCI the 
> service as it is right now, although I would say it would be good to have 
> ability to submit KernelCI jobs from GitLab CI and pull results in the same 
> pipeline, as we discussed earlier.

I'd like to add that both CI have a different purpose in the Linux project. This
CI work is a pre-merge verification. Everyone needs to run checkpatch and
smatch, this is automating it (and will catch those that forgot or ran it
incorrectly). But it can go further by effectively testing specific patches on
real hardware (with pretty narrow filters). It will help catch submission issues
earlier, and reduce kernelCI regression rate. As a side effect, kernelCI infra
will endup catching the "integration" issues, which are the issue as a result of
simultenous changes in different trees. They are also often more complex and
benefit from the bisection capabilities.

kernelCI tests are also a lot more intensive, they usually covers everything,
but they bundle multiple changes per run. The pre-merge tests will be reduced to
what seems meaningful for the changes. Its important to understand that pre-
merge CI have a time cost, and we need to make sure CI time does not exceed the
merge window period.

Nicolas

Powered by blists - more mailing lists