From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <ci-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124])
	by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC7C5A0350
	for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 09:07:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DEB01D563;
	Tue, 23 Jun 2020 09:07:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-1.mimecast.com
 [205.139.110.61]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C33681D53A
 for <ci@dpdk.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 09:07:47 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com;
 s=mimecast20190719; t=1592896067;
 h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:
 to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type:
 content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=K+mL0HtMEzJ1QUn9slEnjF6nmSIT97F43C6xDu/AQCw=;
 b=dj+ziGLlnKnFfgl7/IVki5yEdvG8+G9Lgi7GjqX5FTs1WbsQZYRywG3nVhT862ltyWrFyz
 Hjb7NJb4o2Hb6yF/kE28ISphiZzkG5d2J6Vf2XZZNufn4QAEv/v/WU9nHkKvGICqxNbOU3
 aP5rKEoDA6O4S3ddqHO4Onr8TJ1huSU=
Received: from mail-vk1-f199.google.com (mail-vk1-f199.google.com
 [209.85.221.199]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id
 us-mta-108--bCy-vx1OQm-Uz33ob556g-1; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 03:07:43 -0400
X-MC-Unique: -bCy-vx1OQm-Uz33ob556g-1
Received: by mail-vk1-f199.google.com with SMTP id m22so102839vka.22
 for <ci@dpdk.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 00:07:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc
 :content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=K+mL0HtMEzJ1QUn9slEnjF6nmSIT97F43C6xDu/AQCw=;
 b=c2xLENQ3N2IpRrG44AJgYw41M3Wy8GX5BPlhGZBREE+krY3grQoYk+LbcBeTXfy71g
 MgsvChBquVJyEmYwRxgsl68epV9bWq9sWGgVRwfmP7QeH33e1tgDYhFyAPuOmQbLjhw3
 ZyEPv0CobhLA2Gd7RWF5epZSJIvyiAwHGcpACaz24MvkXgQ6Chr8u2di6UmlTY6N7UAB
 r0eMy6LyLZ0cbcl5DKONreeW7XQkOQ7GooFu0zr95nSa+u/eq0QDNIKKIb69f1SmS6kH
 Q5mxSu2siRHTXq3QKlQ3UTkCoQHKW6zUgS5+pvMR4Z44DDtJcTIib3hIgl0q9GJmRlA7
 VakQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5310ZWmm2V0h22tdg62LaUMKld258MJpbZAbOWW5440rQYxOmi6I
 RPb0ttVXciG0neghSF2ZmxSFLpztxBYstIL4/yZ6FfjN6CP+9UhTB31YI5EL7ndmjW5fY0gTF47
 svGc5YafRhbgGHM4ePg==
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:d986:: with SMTP id q128mr8841108vkg.56.1592896063111; 
 Tue, 23 Jun 2020 00:07:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwUcZKIaW6roK7l3nl2tzXFB0AyokMCet5bqKzUa92TnK9NJ23dDNQQjOaf5rjI7qGekJDzRQSW1HyhKu+9LXo=
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:d986:: with SMTP id q128mr8841094vkg.56.1592896062793; 
 Tue, 23 Jun 2020 00:07:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 09:07:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJFAV8wzbt1GjeepRe4jHADOG-WBVRspwVwA5A-qZyXvLNxQ5A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Chen, Zhaoyan" <zhaoyan.chen@intel.com>
Cc: ci@dpdk.org, sys_stv@intel.com
Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com;
 auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [dpdk-ci] Failures reported by Intel CI for series 10551
X-BeenThere: ci@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK CI discussions <ci.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/ci>,
 <mailto:ci-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/ci/>
List-Post: <mailto:ci@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ci-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/ci>,
 <mailto:ci-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ci-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "ci" <ci-bounces@dpdk.org>

Hello,

(It looks like I have no luck with CI those days... :-)).

All patches of a series of mine
(https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=3D10551) are
marked as failing all compilation in Intel CI.

- Is it normal to see all patches with the exact same test report?
Patch 1: http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2020-June/137872.html
Patch 9: http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2020-June/137880.html

UNH and ovsrobot only report once when testing a full series.
It makes more sense if Intel CI only tests full series.


- Putting the first point aside, and focusing on patch 9 error:
http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2020-June/137880.html

../drivers/mempool/bucket/rte_mempool_bucket.c: In function =E2=80=98bucket=
_get_count=E2=80=99:
../drivers/mempool/bucket/rte_mempool_bucket.c:400:2: error: implicit
declaration of function =E2=80=98rte_lcore_iterate=E2=80=99; did you mean
=E2=80=98rte_lcore_is_enabled=E2=80=99? [-Werror=3Dimplicit-function-declar=
ation]
  rte_lcore_iterate(count_per_lcore, &ctx);
  ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  rte_lcore_is_enabled
../drivers/mempool/bucket/rte_mempool_bucket.c:400:2: error: nested
extern declaration of =E2=80=98rte_lcore_iterate=E2=80=99 [-Werror=3Dnested=
-externs]
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors


This function is defined in rte_lcore.h which does seem to be
included, seeing how the compiler suggests another
rte_lcore_is_enabled function.
The v2 revision passed fine
(http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2020-June/137552.html) and
I see no change in v3 that would break like this.

I am a bit puzzled...
One thing that comes to mind, do we have dpdk headers installed
system-wide on the Intel CI server(s)?


--=20
David Marchand