From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC7C5A0350 for ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 09:07:31 +0200 Message-ID: To: "Chen, Zhaoyan" 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ci-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "ci" 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