From: Kevin Traynor <ktraynor@redhat.com>
To: Lincoln Lavoie <lylavoie@iol.unh.edu>
Cc: ci@dpdk.org, Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>,
David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu>,
Jeremy Spewock <jspewock@iol.unh.edu>
Subject: Re: UNH CI skipped tests
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2023 14:04:31 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <08944dac-937f-5433-6ce5-fb6fbb2536ed@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOE1vsOXA7FTBNTdtS2NXsmrFmDnDwOfy21hroLr--GRrEtHBg@mail.gmail.com>
On 02/03/2023 13:22, Lincoln Lavoie wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> The FIPS and crypto (ZUC / SNOW) testing shouldn't be running on the older
> LTS branches, because they don't include the required patches that were
> released as part of 22.11. So, you can ignore those failures. We'll make
> sure those tests are excluded from future runs on the older
> staging branches.
ok, cool, thanks.
>
> In terms of the two runs, I'm not sure of the cause and we'll have to look
> into that.
>
No problem, it's not urgent or blocking. I will keep a closer eye on the
tests ran in future and just force a re-run if necessary.
thanks,
Kevin.
> Cheers,
> Lincoln
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 5:04 AM Kevin Traynor <ktraynor@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a question about UNH CI periodic runs. I had 2x runs of CI on
>> 21.11-staging on the same commit, a few days apart.
>>
>> The issue I see is that the first test run came back all green, so I
>> assume good and I can push to 21.11 branch. However, the second run
>> comes back with additional tests that showed failures.
>>
>> So I'm wondering why there are additional tests in the second run? and
>> if/how skipped tests are being reported?
>>
>> At least with the fips tests I have seen previously so I don't think
>> they are all newly enabled tests in the days in-between.
>>
>> Details below.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Kevin.
>>
>> Initial test run:
>> https://dpdkdashboard.iol.unh.edu/results/dashboard/tarballs/23476/
>>
>> Second test run:
>> https://dpdkdashboard.iol.unh.edu/results/dashboard/tarballs/23560/
>>
>> Additional tests in the second run:
>> Ubuntu 20.04 VM - dpdk_fips_validation (warning, not reported in
>> dashboard?)
>> NA NA (Linux container host) 10000 Mbps - cryptodev_sw_zuc_autotest (fail)
>> NA NA (Linux container host) 10000 Mbps - cryptodev_sw_snow3g_autotest
>> (fail)
>> Arm Intel XL710-QDA2 4000 Mbps - lpm_autotest, unit_tests_mbuf
>> Arm Broadcom 25000 Mbps - unit_tests_mbuf,nic_single_core_tests
>> Ubuntu 20.04 ARM GCC Cross compile - dpdk_meson_compile
>> Ubuntu 20.04 ARM SVE - lpm_autotest
>>
>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-02 14:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-02 10:04 Kevin Traynor
2023-03-02 13:22 ` Lincoln Lavoie
2023-03-02 14:04 ` Kevin Traynor [this message]
2023-03-02 18:49 ` Patrick Robb
2023-03-03 9:59 ` Kevin Traynor
2023-03-03 14:33 ` Patrick Robb
2023-03-03 15:15 ` Kevin Traynor
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=08944dac-937f-5433-6ce5-fb6fbb2536ed@redhat.com \
--to=ktraynor@redhat.com \
--cc=aconole@redhat.com \
--cc=ci@dpdk.org \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=jspewock@iol.unh.edu \
--cc=lylavoie@iol.unh.edu \
--cc=probb@iol.unh.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).