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 6ABC1A0350 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 16:20:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 401111D6C6; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 16:20:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-ej1-f45.google.com (mail-ej1-f45.google.com [209.85.218.45]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59E291BEA5 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 16:19:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-ej1-f45.google.com with SMTP id dr13so2647001ejc.3 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 07:19:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xl71YisdvqsB2bRYq4GWGbMjCS3nIzFd9mlp7NmNy8E=; b=LI2o9CnMpOWoGkNde5tXjl7IMmy96XtOqDqfafNxkNLTS+PO0D+OzJEzs7knXzaznn C1fKJobW2gjcg7MR2CX766ng7to4xW8MldNoERfDfHzXgnPINmwe474ZAQ7VYGArXjgC yH2hs6y+fpE2KREccD1rPuyhq4pOrNsUVCr9M= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xl71YisdvqsB2bRYq4GWGbMjCS3nIzFd9mlp7NmNy8E=; b=PX4WxNMv8cbK8/LIxU8raiIGTNz9FV74xRi0iuPPCSOqNSeIb21NzXiyyc3az8oM27 IVRi/S1UUAZ3uC0Ady9D9oo3dGkIQarE7UcnfWCSCjetoBRqmIi39YCAHlbPtZRig1hL soT4VRJPn1UVc34ekb+3tT0HvUqQB0UqgTZ/0/SWK0iQA4vomrSQ8QZyDkeOrwvAwMm9 wGUPmacScqwRIJr8ur/AKDvDygHR0/zhPRbuA4HqwXXWHvKBr1p65LNAhTy4Czk/NDI+ zV2ltim8XJEAbl/k7PZBPPMeQRDlCkeS4bMfM8v0Ersz8lOHgmCfEE6EJoVuBw3TcV+l vdmw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530hNS3lCQ6dJ8PQiDut+zQij9GNeHJGHoAP2xyxm7j7c7LGt3dg Ey8kQ6Jx13RPKaDJM1V9gcPF3WnraAAcN8lJ7UkmhA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwvt0JPmLWswR4PN4q/AcZDXaWVHA0u/WZGbfLKH3iceG86yONY6rOjpZ0vXQsZJWBMEwDMYYZZ51Kl9nz5AwY= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:46cd:: with SMTP id k13mr19537678ejs.312.1593008398985; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 07:19:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Lincoln Lavoie Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 10:19:24 -0400 Message-ID: To: David Marchand Cc: "Chen, Zhaoyan" , ci@dpdk.org, sys_stv@intel.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bf348b05a8d52bf1" Subject: Re: [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" --000000000000bf348b05a8d52bf1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi David, Did you get any response to this from the Intel folks? Should we add a bug to track this for discussion / review at our meeting next week? Cheers, Lincoln On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 3:07 AM David Marchand wrote: > 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-decl= aration] > 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=3Dnest= ed-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)? > > > -- > David Marchand > > --=20 *Lincoln Lavoie* Senior Engineer, Broadband Technologies 21 Madbury Rd., Ste. 100, Durham, NH 03824 lylavoie@iol.unh.edu https://www.iol.unh.edu +1-603-674-2755 (m) --000000000000bf348b05a8d52bf1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi = David,

Did you get any re= sponse to this from the Intel folks?=C2=A0 Should we add a bug to track thi= s for discussion / review at our meeting next week?

Cheers,
Lincoln

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at = 3:07 AM David Marchand <dav= id.marchand@redhat.com> wrote:
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/archi= ves/test-report/2020-June/137872.html
Patch 9: http://mails.dpdk.org/archi= ves/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]
=C2=A0 rte_lcore_iterate(count_per_lcore, &ctx);
=C2=A0 ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
=C2=A0 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)?


--
David Marchand



--
Lincoln Lavoie
Senior Engineer, Broadband Technologies
21 Madbury Rd., Ste. 10= 0, Durham, NH 03824
+1-603-674= -2755 (m)
--000000000000bf348b05a8d52bf1--