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 7DD95A0C41 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 12:33:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73D7441109; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 12:33:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6FE2410F7; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 12:33:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D0235C0148; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 06:33:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 08 Oct 2021 06:33:47 -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= zFOcVhxhDwfKxy6/Xa03tTNWzl6h6wu6p0fEXJt8F/I=; b=kzGkDWlby1JzpjGe WF0qYCmtceqEEWuDZjocr9CiBYOVjJsHFo/EpoI8FeJSsQIt+974qO/DRik8Cjm1 98ULE7FJGTrW7dH4N5GMFugt3VdYKqjrbd07zhdnqWDPnC9Twu0V4XW/rUvKJUjU sw8T3Y9ayTRiDp1pskbfauu/6e6RkKzg8+wqPDNLp69b/pL2CbL018aD4O+LZnYV tpXPK+JzYQ6VQlPyFn+rTd4Pmmbh8p8qva0+gPRvVACZfyUk//LtJpa1jbAwlteN If9h+V7LzRNO+CVQ0FuLYbwytpdbWkVTXUXB/R9ak5g+KmKRhLVlJ9Tqb7AoBCme sAyvmA== 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=zFOcVhxhDwfKxy6/Xa03tTNWzl6h6wu6p0fEXJt8F /I=; b=hK27EBLrUyIuGOnAD0NEqUJNxbMsBUCO+T9LAzOO+idLYntVsElvGrrqH KJNJK70Lz8qciDlZoEwfdwvXicCv/nrTP7mnckA0gpQWaNHHcQ8s4+Edo+aDplG8 /rH5ieQEoyIpfCpPe/s0MKIYKoAX9SgSQclk5gV67rdlymxotjgZ+7Ao5duWyqsj v6gWo36Xca/kMgZX0jC8o/OpdmZVdrAWp1s1dteuh502GS2xA8AGhpNLE/jcsBhp e/epL6ojUNCSxkQ2ZSpNbfU8nHrxOngfYzoIDSGarppROgy9d5Y9ugXsjAMowQbk blaXgCUK5djQv0yb06inuaZLj2Y9w== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrvddttddgvdekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhephfevhfevueejvefgueekhfffkefgjeeuffehfeelgfevudfgveel jefhieffteeunecuffhomhgrihhnpeguphgukhdrohhrghdprghuthhothgvshhtrdhphi enucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhho mhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 06:33:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: David Marchand , "Chen, Zhaoyan" , Lincoln Lavoie , Ali Alnubani , Aaron Conole , ci@dpdk.org, Ferruh Yigit Cc: dev Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2021 12:19:30 +0200 Message-ID: <4908203.EXNKlGYlhs@thomas> In-Reply-To: <01fac4e3-6c15-012d-0427-0936ef537bbb@intel.com> References: <01fac4e3-6c15-012d-0427-0936ef537bbb@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] Should we keep autotest.py ? 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" 08/10/2021 10:03, Ferruh Yigit: > On 10/8/2021 8:30 AM, David Marchand wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 3:08 PM David Marchand wrote: > >> > >> Looking at how to add an autotest, I came upon autotest_data.py used > >> by autotest.py which has been in DPDK for a long time. > >> > >> From what I see, DTS directly calls the test binary. > >> The public CI relies on meson to invoke unit tests. > >> > >> Is the autotest.py script still used in some CI or can we remove it? > > > > Looking back in history, we lost ability to call this script with make removal. > > So I'd say we are fine with dropping it. > > See 3cc6ecfdfe85 ("build: remove makefiles") > > > > Going once. > > > > I asked similar some time ago [1], I am not using it (or not aware of anything that > depends on it), so no objection to remove it. > > [1] > http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/6f487e05-c40f-8445-247d-43f4dc3bf822@intel.com/ > No objection.