From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A606CA0C47 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 15:57:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9669340E0F; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 15:57:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com (new2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.224]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B8EC40151; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 15:57:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADCA1580E39; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 09:57:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 12 Oct 2021 09:57:46 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm2; bh= N4Od/dVurAJradb89uqMMOqOgPZdD97JVVGA+yZQiOw=; b=V693Au5CtVF443EY 0bpfPp34ueS9oP6NHguuhG1VMtFu+YzwK/bvuTboglI5nR5y2j/feWf0BGZee9rn MlK8lY702Rcczq8mFmk3bojm9EcUno8oIHxzPcJuPHabnBNdtjJwuFbRt5yTZQer z+Jm0Ut4QjKeJ+PEXrs8TvfCpM34nBY4hxzcLGbJ0otJS1BWEgG/+hWONSdfy3pO qbjlxeF8i5uf5HNmJ1v/xUIr6JHh0RRF7LnaUt/2zYw3a7bC23K/spYvDuViLHRK RGkBaSjZEZNeVeOEw/sVc2KqgJdMOEyIfdKnaCiHNzR+XNzcgB76A99GxOCya0a8 pecZyA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=N4Od/dVurAJradb89uqMMOqOgPZdD97JVVGA+yZQi Ow=; b=fCNr+dJc81UBJ9Y1fc9QTBq7XlaMTxSQj8i2xrFCP7s7geGH2GGtaH8Sl JV7AlLwTQSqAj9AdNZsmCoUQdstHn66tUJobHltGfHiQANELHjln5/usiy6FXLOa HCS/G49yWlM4RMWAYzTB33IT12lsgsuva+xfcaFz1ZFcpqVw8Qr1ys99xYw9xz6t b65KY2Zn4UsdxTsCLPH6Gs7u1KTYqaP1JG5FpXvBT1G5coIeWQCkD1cxL8tWXEDa ADDSvhdMIu8FiK85ZhtLfh9dvN47wLHHPHX+2NWHHf0ORWqmRzkdMUtivxkF5iVl Cw5qw96xZQVrsa9rKSThfy0ZKnQ0A== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrvddtkedgieekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 09:57:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Lincoln Lavoie , Aaron Conole , David Marchand , Ferruh Yigit Cc: Thinh Tran , Brandon Lo , "Zhang, Qi Z" , dev , "Yang, Qiming" , "ci@dpdk.org" , dpdklab , "Singh, Aman Deep" Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 15:57:40 +0200 Message-ID: <12868744.RCERaND3CH@thomas> In-Reply-To: <2892d296-4690-ab6e-8c48-3e997644c2a6@intel.com> References: <2892d296-4690-ab6e-8c48-3e997644c2a6@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] [dpdk-dev] RHEL7 failures X-BeenThere: ci@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK CI discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ci-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "ci" 12/10/2021 15:32, Ferruh Yigit: > On 10/12/2021 1:39 PM, Lincoln Lavoie wrote: > > Ferruh and Thinh, > > > > Yes, that will also work and should trigger the rebuild to the tip of the > > current git repo / branch. Apologizes for forgetting that behavior is > > built into the runner. > > > > All, > > > > That raises the question, for the planned work to allow triggering rebuilds > > / reruns through patchwork, what is the expected behavior, rerun exactly > > what was run before, or move to the current pointer (assuming it's moved > > on) and build/run on top of that? What best aligns with everyone's > > expectations, so we don't get confusion, etc.? > > > > I don't see any problem to rerun the test with latest head of the repo, > eventually patch on the patchwork needs to be merged on top of the latest > head. > Even the intention is only to test infrastructure etc with rerun, > it shouldn't hurt to update the pointer too. +1 to run on the latest HEAD