[dpdk-ci] Fwd: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] app/test-crypto-perf: fix compilation under FreeBSD

[dpdk-ci] Fwd: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] app/test-crypto-perf: fix compilation under FreeBSD

[Thomas Monjalon]

Qian,

There was (unfortunately) a compilation failure on FreeBSD.
I think that in such a case, the FreeBSD compilation must be skipped
in the automatic compilation tests. Or ideally it should not be
considered as a failure when testing a new patch, considering the failure
was already there.

Now that it is fixed in the mainline, would it be possible to re-run the tests
for the recent pending patches?
Note that the patchwork result will be updated when sending a new report for
the same patch with the same test label.


-----------------------------------

Objet : Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] app/test-crypto-perf: fix compilation under FreeBSD
Date : jeudi 9 février 2017, 16:22:37
De : Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
 À : Daniel Mrzyglod <danielx.t.mrzyglod@intel.com>
CC : dev@dpdk.org, slawomirx.mrozowicz@intel.com

2017-02-07 10:44, Daniel Mrzyglod:
> This patch fixes error: implicit declaration of function 'getline'
> 
> Fixes: f8be1786b1b8 ("app/crypto-perf: introduce performance test application")
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Mrzyglod <danielx.t.mrzyglod@intel.com>

Applied, thanks

Re: [dpdk-ci] Fwd: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] app/test-crypto-perf: fix compilation under FreeBSD

[Wei, FangfangX]

Hi Thomas,
I find that the states of patches are RFC, Accepted, Changes Requested, Deferred, Superseded and New. I plan to re-run the patch， the state of which is New. Is that OK?

Best Regards
Fangfang Wei

-----Original Message-----
From: ci [mailto:ci-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 11:35 PM
To: Xu, Qian Q <qian.q.xu@intel.com>
Cc: ci@dpdk.org
Subject: [dpdk-ci] Fwd: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] app/test-crypto-perf: fix compilation under FreeBSD

Qian,

There was (unfortunately) a compilation failure on FreeBSD.
I think that in such a case, the FreeBSD compilation must be skipped in the automatic compilation tests. Or ideally it should not be considered as a failure when testing a new patch, considering the failure was already there.

Now that it is fixed in the mainline, would it be possible to re-run the tests for the recent pending patches?
Note that the patchwork result will be updated when sending a new report for the same patch with the same test label.


-----------------------------------

Objet : Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] app/test-crypto-perf: fix compilation under FreeBSD Date : jeudi 9 février 2017, 16:22:37 De : Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>  À : Daniel Mrzyglod <danielx.t.mrzyglod@intel.com> CC : dev@dpdk.org, slawomirx.mrozowicz@intel.com

2017-02-07 10:44, Daniel Mrzyglod:
> This patch fixes error: implicit declaration of function 'getline'
> 
> Fixes: f8be1786b1b8 ("app/crypto-perf: introduce performance test 
> application")
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Mrzyglod <danielx.t.mrzyglod@intel.com>

Applied, thanks

Re: [dpdk-ci] Fwd: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] app/test-crypto-perf: fix compilation under FreeBSD

[Thomas Monjalon]

2017-02-13 02:18, Wei, FangfangX:
> From: Thomas Monjalon
> > There was (unfortunately) a compilation failure on FreeBSD.
> > I think that in such a case, the FreeBSD compilation must be skipped in
> > the automatic compilation tests. Or ideally it should not be considered
> > as a failure when testing a new patch, considering the failure was
> > already there.
> > 
> > Now that it is fixed in the mainline, would it be possible to re-run the
> > tests for the recent pending patches? Note that the patchwork result will
> > be updated when sending a new report for the same patch with the same
> > test label.
>  
> Hi Thomas,
> I find that the states of patches are RFC, Accepted, Changes Requested,
> Deferred, Superseded and New. I plan to re-run the patch， the state of
> which is New. Is that OK?

Please, could you re-run also the tests for the Deferred?
They will be New when 17.02 is released.

Re: [dpdk-ci] Fwd: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] app/test-crypto-perf: fix compilation under FreeBSD

[Wei, FangfangX]

The new patches has been re-run today, I'll re-run the Deferred soon.

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 5:00 PM
To: Wei, FangfangX <fangfangx.wei@intel.com>
Cc: Xu, Qian Q <qian.q.xu@intel.com>; ci@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] Fwd: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] app/test-crypto-perf: fix compilation under FreeBSD

2017-02-13 02:18, Wei, FangfangX:
> From: Thomas Monjalon
> > There was (unfortunately) a compilation failure on FreeBSD.
> > I think that in such a case, the FreeBSD compilation must be skipped 
> > in the automatic compilation tests. Or ideally it should not be 
> > considered as a failure when testing a new patch, considering the 
> > failure was already there.
> > 
> > Now that it is fixed in the mainline, would it be possible to re-run 
> > the tests for the recent pending patches? Note that the patchwork 
> > result will be updated when sending a new report for the same patch 
> > with the same test label.
>  
> Hi Thomas,
> I find that the states of patches are RFC, Accepted, Changes 
> Requested, Deferred, Superseded and New. I plan to re-run the patch， 
> the state of which is New. Is that OK?

Please, could you re-run also the tests for the Deferred?
They will be New when 17.02 is released.

Re: [dpdk-ci] Fwd: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] app/test-crypto-perf: fix compilation under FreeBSD

[Thomas Monjalon]

2017-02-13 09:20, Wei, FangfangX:
> The new patches has been re-run today, I'll re-run the Deferred soon.

Thank you


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] 
> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 5:00 PM
> To: Wei, FangfangX <fangfangx.wei@intel.com>
> Cc: Xu, Qian Q <qian.q.xu@intel.com>; ci@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] Fwd: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] app/test-crypto-perf: fix compilation under FreeBSD
> 
> 2017-02-13 02:18, Wei, FangfangX:
> > From: Thomas Monjalon
> > > There was (unfortunately) a compilation failure on FreeBSD.
> > > I think that in such a case, the FreeBSD compilation must be skipped 
> > > in the automatic compilation tests. Or ideally it should not be 
> > > considered as a failure when testing a new patch, considering the 
> > > failure was already there.
> > > 
> > > Now that it is fixed in the mainline, would it be possible to re-run 
> > > the tests for the recent pending patches? Note that the patchwork 
> > > result will be updated when sending a new report for the same patch 
> > > with the same test label.
> >  
> > Hi Thomas,
> > I find that the states of patches are RFC, Accepted, Changes 
> > Requested, Deferred, Superseded and New. I plan to re-run the patch， 
> > the state of which is New. Is that OK?
> 
> Please, could you re-run also the tests for the Deferred?
> They will be New when 17.02 is released.
>