From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-qt1-f174.google.com (mail-qt1-f174.google.com [209.85.160.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0972245015 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2024 22:11:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.160.174 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709417466; cv=none; b=RYeh7FOeBAoTqtlXKfxkOjd0QFU/Yqbdpw6Ihv3VVs7ZOwCR7M+3zkNYsCaOFqivnfxD3yMUDm34j5KF/d29BCODVtdvB82dZITPAn1FhvqgtCqDuptNnIpsX8Xcy25/gxa5bNDZyLEllpXkBNErtbdKS6ndzztxzdZc76qJkm4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709417466; c=relaxed/simple; bh=0ALp7TDIJwRAUZcjpLYIfdcASuV8IswcwZ6HVohQkd0=; h=MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=c1U38vNgwKSIV5BKIROoiin4S+K55UMbRmXoR+s7MO+PRug6+9ba4C69DQW7e+4hto4U3Xpn35hfKVAOkNjv87Cv4aRKMCVc3VuCqefQOvkOUkA5L3DMRgPU/0PGPriSQs39cbdt210S2u1kSd4SgSUq/BfzvNT0YIDsVeUTSaQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=google.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b=RsU+kwd1; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.160.174 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="RsU+kwd1" Received: by mail-qt1-f174.google.com with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-42ee0c326e8so63711cf.0 for ; Sat, 02 Mar 2024 14:11:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20230601; t=1709417464; x=1710022264; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=wTM56c3VIZxbBTne5xJnHplyY03OBsavmsip+EQ4Ouw=; b=RsU+kwd1G4XsANOtVcaBKq5gPGdyLSAai33oYbVuOKOjwu+0LsRnsL1GV0CCHxzWr6 kgX2FREDlXF0YaOhBaVe5prpOBZWlN5W9YoAHdf4tVW0/kwXPoxEVY93s6BR88JpuYwf I67mwRZAft5W7VOzEU8V/NxBstPJjTaarhUTquNZEhi381f3btYi/mHyVWSngPyoVW98 Kzc9pb5Eisk3LRWbwCLj+zP4plXml3/0sKQTUP5wdqn8cDWumXLENSwmh3x8yIy52qBu 2eFo4E2K3Ix3L2UxMsGOyIfxQhBa67YdXcqZ1XyXmltLWnwEa5lqi0aheGGs/C0JwLlv wzUA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1709417464; x=1710022264; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=wTM56c3VIZxbBTne5xJnHplyY03OBsavmsip+EQ4Ouw=; b=U7bjybtipyuEFZRh9I01SrNFpDTRPeDFzVSV8Fv1sz1rgcC5lIYaG5JCCsqoUSQmr9 WJPzZx87/Pw837hOeTVxZFaMXNUE9RGv+G0blBp1/+og2i8KaIJ6hvLct5kJdQP/zJNq G7LXOWO7VEO427aqQn4J1iypXU81MgmZgpHDhE/90yL+RKE6aAQKZCZ4Jfy6bUTvE6Jh g0S4dhX4VLpMODcqHEpiRJhRj9/GnvBMBXrkJonGKEJGdLJBLjU5XH7fnO1dt8BDChy0 qAtX+yRQbiT0EsozpePZ4OV+6soxk08gzi1WVFaDD+BKP8Pn11SO/5BHt3SC+GY/5jLJ AwBA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCW3o+kV9CcN5iqCKn8P+RtShgCcKYNPN7YzLfooy6cZGXmRM/tu5aM+cCuD64aLtgSlV1PcCwKpEwBR1IsWcDoV03jfagF/ig4F X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yxbihg0p87DX56+VLh0YeZKyRmfg2D6TopG37YQpbjhcbfuvgHB KlJsXkzaqQT36RGDWrZ3IImUlyf+czOUBjqdoqcUqcoC0vy9LAeTJUEAvIcXfdbjaJIoUtuyAfE crfdfKrrp1ItpEYvsLXJF0URmdTzKhEHY30TK X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH9sc7BkUOA/MoUZBJgDctjPHOF2trLohxTQjAjH4xi/HZsF8GyNQXPUzk/gDR+MwNciAkndO1CuKQxBDT3R0k= X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1989:b0:42e:e1d9:6df8 with SMTP id u9-20020a05622a198900b0042ee1d96df8mr52100qtc.23.1709417463845; Sat, 02 Mar 2024 14:11:03 -0800 (PST) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20240228225527.1052240-1-helen.koike@collabora.com> <20240228225527.1052240-2-helen.koike@collabora.com> <20240229-dancing-laughing-groundhog-d85161@houat> <5d7ed81b-37f9-48e9-ab7e-484b74ca886c@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Guenter Roeck Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2024 14:10:51 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] kci-gitlab: Introducing GitLab-CI Pipeline for Kernel Testing To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Nikolai Kondrashov , Maxime Ripard , Helen Koike , linuxtv-ci@linuxtv.org, dave.pigott@collabora.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, gustavo.padovan@collabora.com, pawiecz@collabora.com, tales.aparecida@gmail.com, workflows@vger.kernel.org, kernelci@lists.linux.dev, skhan@linuxfoundation.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, nfraprado@collabora.com, davidgow@google.com, cocci@inria.fr, Julia.Lawall@inria.fr, laura.nao@collabora.com, ricardo.canuelo@collabora.com, kernel@collabora.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 12:21=E2=80=AFPM Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 01:23, Nikolai Kondrashov wrot= e: > > > > 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 r= epo > > setting to point to a particular entry YAML, *inside* the repo (somewhe= re > > 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. 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. Guenter > 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 >