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 3AEB8A0C45 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 12:02:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CBCB41198; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 12:02:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5AA441196 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 12:02:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08F195C01DA; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 06:02:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 22 Sep 2021 06:02:38 -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= BmLUNiE/wIXS3xpYTIt1j5tWF2rOkGpY4/fG1RjD/hg=; b=mOvngcE8DsmGv+E4 bXQ7x39WGd5GWORKpmTynDKj0gd+MPDVr7cCDg4oVZ9COBP9QyhrN1BdVFQAj9D2 IWAt4X/MjqiSUeMV0Doe1nc1NRiSfRHrqghMqlF8sVThT0Sd7EyOuSnu7QU+Fhhl Rjtd1bR3Jmf2sAkgIIGALycbg6IWvEZmWK2JksrhcUvLrPyQVVsJfqkD2j48hmoA 0/X5/gUxvlMkoAhbtwzQjQzX0JgcAQ1vkDXSXaYoyjVbBblozNlUR7mHIQuvlSpd CJ6jl6yoowkHL8rPMzCjB56Eu/Fdtv0C45Ku7igilN9HC0zasBChKOwZL5PVMxAK s268wA== 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=fm3; bh=BmLUNiE/wIXS3xpYTIt1j5tWF2rOkGpY4/fG1RjD/ hg=; b=l2/fUmyDu1F4DlfBEHfr582+tUtWaj16fgfOlD5aMD226zCts5L9i4RcT WCj7Q+WKetsYx2oezhRHEl5QRY6IbRoYzrBJM3kNpJpRAP8qs7zzTXtLGu4P2VeD kd4MSPNL8Ywx8qRvWSJkcqfYhO0m3j4Lr90H3D8RZGkyIumw5Qh8evWk5677afz8 XDJJFiBmyDPPAVucAGZlKyL5QhzefFsJgXpRNyNKRvUxSkK25wlYDsqUmJ3MES8R 6H6WJv/a1UeSYWuMPTZD+CpHK8g53HZ0w/LvGEZw+7AS+SxZ+QBmVnfvvNhfTL2M 8WpbUag9faMzL4IOv5n7Uk6wUR4sw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrudeijedgvddvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepffdvffejueetleefieeludduuefgteejleevfeekjeefieegheet ffdvkeefgedunecuffhomhgrihhnpeguphgukhdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiii gvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhn rdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 06:02:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Qi Zhang , "Yigit, Ferruh" , David Marchand , "Chen, Zhaoyan" Cc: Lincoln Lavoie , "Tu, Lijuan" , sys_stv , "ci@dpdk.org" , Aaron Conole Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 12:02:33 +0200 Message-ID: <3438602.BVhvIeFHnb@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <2731761.8huRqIiH2e@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] Failing pf_smoke test 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" 22/09/2021 11:52, David Marchand: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 9:23 AM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > 22/09/2021 08:17, Chen, Zhaoyan: > > > Thanks Lincoln and David to reminder. > > > > > > Actually, this is a real issue on main branch. > > > > > > The pf_smoke failed due to dpdk bad commit id: b3d95f1817288ca228f09b9164d6d3ff6249b175(has been merged into main branch). > > > > Why a patch failing CI has been merged? > > Is it because we get used to have CI failing and don't pay attention? > > The CI did report this failure on the original series. > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2021-August/210297.html > This series should not have been merged but it was on 08/29: > https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/0935a75ef4334a4c9af65ecb6adac33f@intel.com/ > > I am not sure when it got into next-net. > > A revert was proposed before next-net pull in main on 09/07: > http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20210907064537.74596-1-wenjun1.wu@intel.com/ > > Note, at this point, I had not noticed the original patch had > triggered a regression. > This revert was then deemed not appropriate and in the end the > original series hit the main branch. Thanks for the history. We must improve to avoid such failure in future.