From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C93FBA04F9 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 14:07:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 815181EA2E; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 14:07:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C74AB1E9FE for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 14:07:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16DD721BBA; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 08:07:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 10 Jan 2020 08:07:56 -0500 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=mesmtp; bh=gFspQJACrE97+SaY+u/+xqJn7A2ep0Kz8GH93v4R2CY=; b=VgioRzcA4H4s VC0Ub3ZNJ44807v5kxPgP98bJsCCrV/ABLSX8jPrZEeCv8W48ycRyMFIE3khMYdD ZEfHs09eYLfm71Hkz2aR21ztlUJVAl6yylBOhmNSkmqGrt9iaWZb+y7LbEuJxsGM D8G7LGV5IJpnbVxiUUanvTvVfQ5iKYQ= 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=gFspQJACrE97+SaY+u/+xqJn7A2ep0Kz8GH93v4R2 CY=; b=S0s0diUbEEB61x2gjoLxc0XLIankuDzXkvkuq+0YCdttSPL5//rFoFBeX BhHkfEnkEWwgjWX3WSAJLSslxQguR66EgQ0FxGvxuVM/Gd5/vJTYm2Xz+auzPFX5 PKk6XmXpzPqE8gFiI2gm86fwoatuA8qKbLnThdqVvIwvFMNlSqTPw0qmw6CPWQ8z CppgRJwtdfaa203lFUaCLERes9cXh5G3tW9ep+EYGn4BPJIDnBmeylAGrqX8w6Do Kgpo2R9A5AkgP6o+aR8EZ/lwiS9UlZZrYVb+nwt5/XBnDvHk/ZDoMo2GilwA0ZkX dLjL6SWMj1GLNtr6jpa9no6w9LMcg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrvdeifedggeehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecuff homhgrihhnpeguphgukhdrohhrghenucfkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecu rfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtne cuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2F04A30602DE; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 08:07:54 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Zhang, XuemingX" , "Chen, Zhaoyan" , "Xu, Qian Q" Cc: David Marchand , "ci@dpdk.org" , ferruh.yigit@intel.com, john.mcnamara@intel.com, tim.odriscoll@intel.com, aconole@redhat.com Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 14:07:51 +0100 Message-ID: <2479331.KRxA6XjA2N@xps> In-Reply-To: <82F45D86ADE5454A95A89742C8D1410E4072D32E@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <82F45D86ADE5454A95A89742C8D1410E4072D32E@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] Intel CI reports X-BeenThere: ci@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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" General comment about Intel CI below. First, let me say thanks because during years Intel was the company doing some community CI effort. Second, I think the maintenance of this CI should be more serious in order to make it reliable. Few examples: - here we have a fail with a success result - recently the CI was failing during weeks without anybody monitoring and noticing the issue - quite often, some changes are done in the platforms without making sure it still works Please could you take actions to make sure such issue won't happen anymore? As the first in the game, Intel should be a good example to give confidence in the CI in general, and to show the example to other companies to make the same. Thanks 10/01/2020 12:41, Xu, Qian Q: > Good catch, thx David > Xueming, could you help check? Thx. > > From: David Marchand > > > > Hello, > > > > Looking at a Intel CI report, even if the overall reported status is Success, we can > > notice that a FC30-64 target has a FAIL status. > > > > Example: > > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2020-January/112739.html > > > > | FC30-64 | FAIL | | | | | > > | | > > > > > > Thanks.