* Re: [dpdk-ci] check patch status duplicated in mailing list
[not found] <86228AFD5BCD8E4EBFD2B90117B5E81E60326B6D@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
@ 2016-11-15 9:23 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-11-16 1:35 ` Liu, Yong
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Monjalon @ 2016-11-15 9:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Liu, Yong; +Cc: ci
2016-11-15 03:32, Liu, Yong:
> Hi Thomas,
> There're two checkpatch report in this mailing now. One of them is included in patchset status report.
> These two reports are focusing on the same thing and sometimes mismatched in the result.
> I guess it is caused by different version of checkpatch scripts have different rules, ours version is 0.32.
>
> Since newer checkpatch report has been integrated with patch work system. I suggest to remove checkpatch in patchset report. Looking for your option.
Yes I was going to suggest to remove checkpatch from Intel checks.
Also could we improve the check description?
Test-Label: Intel Niantic on Fedora
If it is doing only some compilation checks, it should be
Test-Label: Intel compilation on Fedora
Later this week, I would like to share the scripts used for checkpatch
so that we can have the Intel checks integrated in patchwork.
PS: moving this discussion on ci@dpdk.org
We should post only the test reports on test-report@dpdk.org
and discuss on ci@dpdk.org.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-ci] check patch status duplicated in mailing list
2016-11-15 9:23 ` [dpdk-ci] check patch status duplicated in mailing list Thomas Monjalon
@ 2016-11-16 1:35 ` Liu, Yong
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Liu, Yong @ 2016-11-16 1:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Monjalon; +Cc: ci, Wei, FangfangX
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 5:24 PM
> To: Liu, Yong
> Cc: ci@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: check patch status duplicated in mailing list
>
> 2016-11-15 03:32, Liu, Yong:
> > Hi Thomas,
> > There're two checkpatch report in this mailing now. One of them is
> included in patchset status report.
> > These two reports are focusing on the same thing and sometimes
> mismatched in the result.
> > I guess it is caused by different version of checkpatch scripts have
> different rules, ours version is 0.32.
> >
> > Since newer checkpatch report has been integrated with patch work system.
> I suggest to remove checkpatch in patchset report. Looking for your option.
>
> Yes I was going to suggest to remove checkpatch from Intel checks.
>
> Also could we improve the check description?
> Test-Label: Intel Niantic on Fedora
> If it is doing only some compilation checks, it should be
> Test-Label: Intel compilation on Fedora
>
Sure, we will change the description for patch set build check.
BTW, we have enhanced our patch set build check from only build once to build with each patch.
This new report will take the place of the existing one in the near future.
We will look for you suggestions on it:)
> Later this week, I would like to share the scripts used for checkpatch
> so that we can have the Intel checks integrated in patchwork.
>
> PS: moving this discussion on ci@dpdk.org
> We should post only the test reports on test-report@dpdk.org
> and discuss on ci@dpdk.org.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-11-16 1:35 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <86228AFD5BCD8E4EBFD2B90117B5E81E60326B6D@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
2016-11-15 9:23 ` [dpdk-ci] check patch status duplicated in mailing list Thomas Monjalon
2016-11-16 1:35 ` Liu, Yong
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).