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

[Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>]

On Sun, Mar 3, 2024 at 3:30 AM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
> On 3/2/24 14:10, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 12:21 PM Linus Torvalds
> > <torvalds@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 01:23, Nikolai Kondrashov <spbnick@gmail.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.

+1

> > 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.

You don't even have to do your own builds (although it does help),
and can look at e.g. http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/

Kisskb can send out email when builds get broken, and when they get
fixed again.  I receive such emails for the m68k builds.
I have the feeling this is not used up to its full potential yet.
My initial plan with the "Build regressions/improvements in ..." emails
[1] was to fully automate this, and enable it for the other daily builds
(e.g. linux-next), too, but there are only so many hours in a day...

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240226081253.3688538-1-geert@linux-m68k.org/

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds