linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] kci-gitlab: Introducing GitLab-CI Pipeline for Kernel Testing

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: <CAHk-=wixVy3WYvjbt43ZSrCqPDsS76QJQSkXFbbPsAOs1MCSAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:21:00 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Nikolai Kondrashov <spbnick@...il.com>
Cc: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, Helen Koike <helen.koike@...labora.com>, 
	linuxtv-ci@...uxtv.org, dave.pigott@...labora.com, 
	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, 
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] kci-gitlab: Introducing GitLab-CI Pipeline for Kernel Testing

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 01:23, Nikolai Kondrashov <spbnick@...il.com> wrote:
>
> However, I think a better approach would be *not* to add the .gitlab-ci.yaml
> file in the root of the source tree, but instead change the very same repo
> setting to point to a particular entry YAML, *inside* the repo (somewhere
> under "ci" directory) instead.

I really don't want some kind of top-level CI for the base kernel project.

We already have the situation that the drm people have their own ci
model. II'm ok with that, partly because then at least the maintainers
of that subsystem can agree on the rules for that one subsystem.

I'm not at all interested in having something that people will then
either fight about, or - more likely - ignore, at the top level
because there isn't some global agreement about what the rules are.

For example, even just running checkpatch is often a stylistic thing,
and not everybody agrees about all the checkpatch warnings.

I would suggest the CI project be separate from the kernel.

And having that slack channel that is restricted to particular
companies is just another sign of this whole disease.

If you want to make a google/microsoft project to do kernel CI, then
more power to you, but don't expect it to be some kind of agreed-upon
kernel project when it's a closed system.

               Linus