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 97569A0C45 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 11:53:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6970B41198; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 11:53:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EE2841196 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 11:53:16 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1632304395; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=+ihrO51QYRrbAMT4hf6NdAhOEVxSL//6RQrmv7Djemk=; b=EatPL0mQDxz1Q/BToXY8eZkFncF12m2NimiZMxdd23OI4I508mEeqvqdx7+dc7xKwBEF6W Oq/s2c+imW95mjAYOVqh01XWcUO7/ZvZ4ovd5cyQZnR7AR5qN13FkW71SMX2Mo6Ie5OblP jFZ0nz1yHTvL5ErhoV+FYOm7qCJj+Jw= Received: from mail-lf1-f69.google.com (mail-lf1-f69.google.com [209.85.167.69]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-498-fRvgL5PTM2KSMN61fqWk2g-1; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 05:53:13 -0400 X-MC-Unique: fRvgL5PTM2KSMN61fqWk2g-1 Received: by mail-lf1-f69.google.com with SMTP id x143-20020a19c795000000b003fa152e3484so2188576lff.23 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 02:53:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+ihrO51QYRrbAMT4hf6NdAhOEVxSL//6RQrmv7Djemk=; b=tcCKj+vhg0AjSdadUBeAz6xIe8Ehtq/67/7riWrX4qTXsyqxTYJWW926Od3PgyWJl8 kME2J7Pj/CYd7PDISvMdCJH7jH+CuD1cWMJomwFaP+QcLjEHrEF8Cqj40CNq8zyaSQP6 KJgRMu8+C4t09GitJm70gmDbi6T8dj08m14tLGwja2GVOVTmazqDUpUjAWntiEconfkj CQ7WGsLcbEA5WMBTMwpMx1kVcfuAV/ekZH59mPjEWqoymdvpc/ijxFxQpxT9UnmuGT03 GlKN21h+aXXHK8hFUk6yTy1LVfM2GAtI7ehlh7j+GntfuCuAkt5e+/ppW/v5pZy0hdem D12g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533l7gWCZPZ8mvIrbVvkeVdiA9bv1faovj4V6MTTmxCFpXafaU+E YfAj4HCyHRMyd1oqGfEzwUv+lWx1NpBGUnsKQYA8KyIQ6C/p4oUFT5eM2HszEIYe+NO3kuecgnf xNWCI5zjLltkjLLcIqQ== X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4e0d:: with SMTP id e13mr20627463lfr.560.1632304391618; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 02:53:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyVMh21HSEOcLGYvqxyclME1ucRMiLpfb7+irat0YkWQaFeS21gFgPnZ16EpowuI81bcbWTnrJcKl0uzSrJ8uw= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4e0d:: with SMTP id e13mr20627444lfr.560.1632304391399; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 02:53:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <64221AA6-3141-4411-A5D4-65251507A2E4@intel.com> <2731761.8huRqIiH2e@thomas> In-Reply-To: <2731761.8huRqIiH2e@thomas> From: David Marchand Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 11:52:59 +0200 Message-ID: To: Thomas Monjalon , Qi Zhang , "Yigit, Ferruh" Cc: "Chen, Zhaoyan" , Lincoln Lavoie , "Tu, Lijuan" , sys_stv , "ci@dpdk.org" , Aaron Conole 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" 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" 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. -- David Marchand