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 DF2E846C0E; Fri, 25 Jul 2025 16:30:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCA5C40144; Fri, 25 Jul 2025 16:30:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pj1-f45.google.com (mail-pj1-f45.google.com [209.85.216.45]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 930EB400D5 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2025 16:30:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pj1-f45.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-312e747d2d8so2330538a91.0 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2025 07:30:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; t=1753453851; x=1754058651; darn=dpdk.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=6Wvhnhq4LKBsDDUsQEE8KcclWmbe+bpIFFlAaseQNjw=; b=ghc8xAtTeDDBX8BGy7/NGupmu/xXmMv7uaMQ9LxRVtQS8tOaiMv0vMh7L6bjePzMBP 0In//P57UCNgsqyAWRomWrw8eqtZW0oIOh1118GyYsVTb9ZRs7s0fSOvDqK1G+0JrKi5 NzwdE/vom41P0NyzJXz+4ik/ryQSHPJ6QaTKc= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1753453851; x=1754058651; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=6Wvhnhq4LKBsDDUsQEE8KcclWmbe+bpIFFlAaseQNjw=; b=WzUC/AdnL8vf+5HjpDK0zr8Zi7nqjG0JVM9tqQDzEhxjuqDlV0mnd4ROYw4+bb+OAZ t5MABN790QFZAXdVWbAZCPltLm530gcNUUBlTNH7CX8FxosxK93drH5FajzrhBnU8duq 2Ef6sKGHV5FkZzDKAXjToDKEWwv0U007iO0ellF+QHmfST8pkIV/w6n3UOonq3wtMdCu 42cc1bZ55vAwT58I16QUVZmqUtf/i3g/NIZqGS6VTfpVv1KxUp3H83e/59LOEJ6QH/rs oUXqhG/yYkwAAFR5+dhEo6JoL/6CnFLVyA/CRIL1WvnPOcoAasr3JDWZnGKzlgUWl1XR HatA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yyzrflxm1MHd6YN0jDSxMTwxfOw8oQFtOG3GVD1Akah223JAWH7 j4PeM4Vlgpef0iKNG+XqQqJiJfwJXMsENP4UWh3ovK7mtsEqDZFkOJ9xjwYyPVJJBsSCAFBDHsX 00liMjNqzysEyQqXCUwcjgvWN8vC1mdE8tgbdn41iGopvfUJEBxWI X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncue+E6FUy89SDZ8S0SwXIzrU/BFFaQNKpt3oK9SVsGz2w3LdgQWUEWNlD2Lod/ iWohzH8ZwBrG9oaqSIhhVMtVrJzWH9l+nA0Y+qU84A62EBui3L8C0Uvdmlt7I0VviVEGWtaM9+9 hbeTd1z9l5cSO0T9QgIIDJTc6okXzr55aDi6etD6kNuXYfC7ZoCFIFUqrVhOLHo39AzIChlXWKY wI28ze352J0fLhSyEljww== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEl3GOcPk38MRgum4ZYfbwgwl0MfAJmKwSLJfmGQAZvC0yaPJMZU2jUejH1gHbG7/pUNEJ++fie9KFIIZBXlLc= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:4b8b:b0:311:a5ab:3d47 with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-31e765aadb7mr3611712a91.1.1753453851315; Fri, 25 Jul 2025 07:30:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <24d143d3-4739-457d-bf15-c6224ca21bb0@loongson.cn> <123907a4-bfa2-180d-7abd-fe4c498c5381@loongson.cn> <404eaac9-72da-ffba-3d59-eb2617df03b8@loongson.cn> In-Reply-To: <404eaac9-72da-ffba-3d59-eb2617df03b8@loongson.cn> From: Patrick Robb Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 10:24:50 -0400 X-Gm-Features: Ac12FXz-zRkN7PA3Ahu0lds3dexHoU3Q-capz6UC6uJ9zY9kR51oRyUzWpJtIAA Message-ID: Subject: Re: Email based retests for the Loongarch lab To: zhoumin Cc: ci@dpdk.org, Aaron Conole , David Marchand , "Brandes, Shai" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f03a2d063ac1c942" 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 --000000000000f03a2d063ac1c942 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 8:50=E2=80=AFAM zhoumin 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=E2=80=AFAM zhoumin wr= ote: > >> 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 pleas= e > 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 o= r > 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. > > --000000000000f03a2d063ac1c942 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Thu, Jul 17,= 2025 at 8:50=E2=80=AFAM zhoumin <zhoumin@loongson.cn> wrote:
=20 =20 =20

Hi Patrick Robb,

On 2025/7/9 8:49AM, Patrick Robb wrote:
=20
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=E2=80=AFAM 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 y= ou 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 behav= ior when it comes to retests which are submitted without the rebase argumen= t. In this case, UNH lab, AWS, and GitHub are running retests on the origin= al patch artifacts without re-applying to the current HEAD at the time of t= he 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 b= ehavior would be uniform across the labs. What that would require in this c= ase is either:

1. Loongson changes to retesting wi= thout re-apply on HEAD when no rebase argument is given (unclear how much w= ork this is)
OR
2. The other labs change their behavior= to just re-apply on HEAD for every retest, regardless of the rebase argume= nt situation (probably not a lot of implementation effort, but does reduce = user flexibility a little).

Sounds like a good top= ic to discuss at an upcoming CI meeting. :)

I will= send the dpdk-web patch noting that you have added rebase coverage. Thanks= Min Zhou.
=C2=A0
=C2=A0
--000000000000f03a2d063ac1c942--