From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD88736E for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 04:56:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Nov 2016 19:56:58 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,714,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="36744787" Received: from fmsmsx104.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.202]) by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Nov 2016 19:56:58 -0800 Received: from fmsmsx112.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.6) by fmsmsx104.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.202) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 19:56:58 -0800 Received: from shsmsx104.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.4.70) by FMSMSX112.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 19:56:57 -0800 Received: from shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.239]) by SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.142]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 11:56:55 +0800 From: "Xu, Qian Q" To: Thomas Monjalon CC: "ci@dpdk.org" , "Wei, FangfangX" , "Liu, Yong" Thread-Topic: Intel PerPatch Build Thread-Index: AQHSSV98PXAtuLsffUiwl1yy5BBYYaDvURPw Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 03:56:55 +0000 Message-ID: <82F45D86ADE5454A95A89742C8D1410E3927590F@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <587443$9qu68@orsmga002.jf.intel.com> <82F45D86ADE5454A95A89742C8D1410E39273935@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> <3110646.SlUphBRNZp@xps13> In-Reply-To: <3110646.SlUphBRNZp@xps13> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] Intel PerPatch Build X-BeenThere: ci@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: CI discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 03:57:01 -0000 See below inline, thx.=20 -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]=20 Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 6:09 PM To: Xu, Qian Q Cc: ci@dpdk.org; Wei, FangfangX Subject: Re: Intel PerPatch Build 2016-11-28 07:30, Xu, Qian Q: > Hi, Thomas > Pls note that we have updated the per patch Intel compilation check=20 > report, and it's the per patch build report. You can get the=20 > test-status result from below report. If you have any comments for the=20 > report, just feel free to let us know. Thanks for improving the report. I have few comments. The list of test reports is easier to read if every report titles start wit= h [dpdk-test-report] |SUCCESS| (or |FAILURE|) I think you can remove [Intel= PerPatch Build] in the title. ---Sure, Fangfang will change it.=20 I feel we need to split the report. What do you think of having a report per OS? or a report per build? It would show easily how big is the failure by looking at the counters and = descriptions in patchwork. The email volume would be bigger but is it a problem? ----current report is for per patch build report, and for each patch, we no= w have 18 builds. We will send out 1 build report for 1 patch. If we send = 18 reports for 1 patch, then it may be too many reports.=20 If you want to check how many failures for the build, for example, 18 build= s, then 1 failures, there is 2 ways to check.=20 1. you can get how many failures information from the Build Summary.=20 > Patch17274-17274 --> compile pass > Build Summary: 18 Builds Done, 18 Successful, 0 Failures 2. We can add the failure numbers in the title, such as [dpdk-test-report] = |2 FAILURE|xxxxx Does it make sense?=20 You need to use the script send-patch-report.sh. It will make your reports integrated in patchwork. ---Fangfang will check your scripts and try it.=20 If I understand well you test every patches of a series at once and send th= e report for the last patch of the series? ----No. We send the report for each patch of the series, not the last one. = The process of per patch build check is as below.=20 1. We pull the patchset, for example, we have 10 patches in 1 patchset. We = will apply all the patches to the git tree.=20 If apply failed for one tree, we will try other trees(such as next-virtio, = next-crypto, next-net), if any tree can be applied, then=20 We think the patch apply OK. If all trees can't be applied, we take it as F= ailure. Then we will send out 10 patch reports, each one is Failure.=20 2. If apply patch is OK, then we do per patch build check one by one. After= 10 patch's build done, we will send report one by one.=20 For example, 10 patches in 1 patchset, we will do 18 builds for each patch,= totally 180 builds for the patchset. Then send report for each patch after= the last patch.=20 Test1: patch1: 18 build Test2: patch1 + patch2: 18 build .... Test10: patch1+xxx+patch10: 18build Is it clear?=20 I think it is a good option while waiting for a real series support in patc= hwork and dpdk-ci scripts. --We can provide per patch result, no need patchset result.=20 =20 > Patch17274-17274 --> compile pass > Build Summary: 18 Builds Done, 18 Successful, 0 Failures