Re: Email based retests for the Loongarch lab

[Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2630 bytes --]

On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 8:50 AM zhoumin <zhoumin@loongson.cn> wrote:

> Hi Patrick Robb,
> On 2025/7/9 8:49AM, Patrick Robb wrote:
>
> Hi Zhoumin,
>
> Aaron did approve the get_reruns.py patch for the rebase arg and merge it
> to dpdk-ci. So, you are good to pull that into your dpdk-ci fork.
>
> Thanks for your contributions. I have used this script to support the
> retest with rebase arg in Loongson lab.
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 12:16 AM zhoumin <zhoumin@loongson.cn> wrote:
>
>> Maybe you can apply it, give it a run and add a tested by tag to the
>> patch if it is working for you?
>>
>> Yes, I have tested it and it is working for me. This patch has a little
>> changes in the inputs and outputs to get_reruns.py, and I need to make
>> corresponding changes to our current implementation of retest.
>>
>>
>> Okay, thanks. When you get the free time to implement these change please
> ping me so I know we are ready for any next steps (like updating the labs
> recheck support status on the DPDK website).
>
> We support the rebase arg now when request to retest. But there maybe a
> little difference between Loongson lab and other labs. We recheck the
> patches on the latest HEAD of the branch specified by rebase arg if has or
> selected by pw_maintainers_cli.py script. I want to know if there will be
> any problems with this behaviour? Is it acceptable?
>

The behavior you describe is correct - when the rebase argument is used,
the patch should be applied to HEAD of the branch specified by the rebase
arg.

However, I do believe there is a discrepancy in our labs behavior when it
comes to retests which are submitted without the rebase argument. In this
case, UNH lab, AWS, and GitHub are running retests on the original patch
artifacts without re-applying to the current HEAD at the time of the
retest. On the other hand, I believe Loongson does re-apply to HEAD even
when the rebase argument is not specified. I think in an ideal world our
behavior would be uniform across the labs. What that would require in this
case is either:

1. Loongson changes to retesting without re-apply on HEAD when no rebase
argument is given (unclear how much work this is)
OR
2. The other labs change their behavior to just re-apply on HEAD for every
retest, regardless of the rebase argument situation (probably not a lot of
implementation effort, but does reduce user flexibility a little).

Sounds like a good topic to discuss at an upcoming CI meeting. :)

I will send the dpdk-web patch noting that you have added rebase coverage.
Thanks Min Zhou.


>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4935 bytes --]