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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2024 16:01:30 -0800
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <groeck@...gle.com>,
 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Nikolai Kondrashov <spbnick@...il.com>, 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 3/2/24 14:10, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 12:21 PM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
> 
> While checkpatch is indeed of arguable value, I think it would help a
> lot not having to bother about the persistent _build_ failures on
> 32-bit systems. You mentioned the fancy drm CI system above, but they
> don't run tests and not even test builds on 32-bit targets, which has
> repeatedly caused (and currently does cause) build failures in drm
> code when trying to build, say, arm:allmodconfig in linux-next. Most
> trivial build failures in linux-next (and, yes, sometimes mainline)
> could be prevented with a simple generic CI.

Yes, definitely. Thanks for bringing that up.

> Sure, argue against checkpatch as much as you like, but the code
> should at least _build_, and it should not be necessary for random
> people to report build failures to the submitters.

I do 110 randconfig builds nightly (10 each of 11 $ARCH/$BITS).
That's about all the horsepower that I have. and I am not a CI.  :)

So I see quite a bit of what you are saying. It seems that Arnd is
in the same boat.

-- 
#Randy