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]

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 09:40:02 +0100
From: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
To: Nicolas Dufresne <nicolas.dufresne@...labora.com>
Cc: 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, 
	spbnick@...il.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 1/3] kci-gitlab: Introducing GitLab-CI Pipeline for
 Kernel Testing

Hi Nicolas,

On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 01:05:12PM -0500, Nicolas Dufresne wrote:
> Le jeudi 29 février 2024 à 10:02 +0100, Maxime Ripard a écrit :
> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 07:55:25PM -0300, Helen Koike wrote:
> > > This patch introduces a `.gitlab-ci` file along with a `ci/` folder,
> > > defininga 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.
> > > 
> > > [ci: add prerequisites to run check-patch on MRs]
> > > Co-developed-by: Tales Aparecida <tales.aparecida@...hat.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Tales Aparecida <tales.aparecida@...hat.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Helen Koike <helen.koike@...labora.com>
> > > 
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > Hey all,
> > > 
> > > You can check the validation of this patchset on:
> > >         https://gitlab.collabora.com/koike/linux/-/pipelines/87035
> > > 
> > > I would appreciate your feedback on this work, what do you think?
> > > 
> > > If you would rate from 0 to 5, where:
> > > 
> > > [ ] 0. I don't think this is useful at all, and I doubt it will ever be. It doesn't seem worthwhile.
> > > [ ] 1. I don't find it useful in its current form.
> > > [ ] 2. It might be useful to others, but not for me.
> > > [ ] 3. It has potential, but it's not yet something I can incorporate into my workflow.
> > > [ ] 4. This is useful, but it needs some adjustments before I can include it in my workflow.
> > > [ ] 5. This is really useful! I'm eager to start using it right away. Why didn't you send this earlier? :)
> > > 
> > > Which rating would you select?
> > 
> > 4.5 :)
> > 
> > One thing I'm wondering here is how we're going to cope with the
> > different requirements each user / framework has.
> > 
> > Like, Linus probably want to have a different set of CI before merging a
> > PR than (say) linux-next does, or stable, or before doing an actual
> > release.
> > 
> > Similarly, DRM probably has a different set of requirements than
> > drm-misc, drm-amd or nouveau.
> > 
> > I don't see how the current architecture could accomodate for that. I
> > know that Gitlab allows to store issues template in a separate repo,
> > maybe we could ask them to provide a feature where the actions would be
> > separate from the main repo? That way, any gitlab project could provide
> > its own set of tests, without conflicting with each others (and we could
> > still share them if we wanted to)
> > 
> > I know some of use had good relationship with Gitlab, so maybe it would
> > be worth asking?
> 
> As agreed, the .gitlab-ci.yaml file at the list will go away. Its a default
> location, but not a required location. This way, each sub-system can have their
> own (or not have one). The different sub-system forks will have to be configured
> to point to their respective CI main configuration.
> 
> Of course nothing prevents having common set of configuration for jobs and jobs
> template. As an example, we could have a job template common for checkpatch, and
> allow each subsystem adding their own sauce on top. It can save the duplicate
> effort of parsing the tool results and reporting it in a format gitlab
> understand.

That makes total sense to me and would be incredibly useful indeed.

Maxime

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)