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 6C03F42341; Mon, 9 Oct 2023 22:03:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58C0E40282; Mon, 9 Oct 2023 22:03:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-oo1-f41.google.com (mail-oo1-f41.google.com [209.85.161.41]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CA974026B for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2023 22:03:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-oo1-f41.google.com with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-57b9231e91dso3021714eaf.2 for ; Mon, 09 Oct 2023 13:03:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; t=1696881819; x=1697486619; 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=6+uODiSdSR+TctIgssK3kl/wjTBP08tIz1C6LN8N67g=; b=VvDaUK7E6GdtWU9ByvyTNr/9xEzMmlZ0hMLKPYszN571S+rqMXwkfcOaxK5ToFOxg1 tt+Dp21hVOFXccVUhUTsU/xy7AigTct4eUGWS4w4BSyhzD9DWGxXaCjNMTVZ3GRIAHH/ uLhrgz0RJ3w8lndRAEbhGDA5PIXFRLF8vwA4I= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1696881819; x=1697486619; 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=6+uODiSdSR+TctIgssK3kl/wjTBP08tIz1C6LN8N67g=; b=k4U8nhLFGISCUWS/KyNDeR54W/Wz1D3vVuggakmkadNZZH1bFUMygvMK4aDsNG4AK9 JduOXcToSrMvtqJ3NnDQu+JPqDLxFgFW/VC/4by0aYUHrAF+CVR4W06WIprHvw5XhQoD 1mDBgbiWCcuq5lJilajSbIQlNBk3ffPJDf+SrPo5hoQTcauguU6Rx7tFaM81wFwRfpAi 3KNtFI0/N0wMVKBXMNAUxwpeMnAoIKiKWGQnPHYYc0jLl3F1ly3fld7T83xGK34Y1U3l wcgtcQvwoEDkq4oItenhD0X8MS415tvWB1bIimhpBHOFbdRdURDIt4jBe9YxcsG1fbVS E7Sg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzG0j1T67ylsD8YRghk69z3NSUkihjfipuP0wrO7AMJ4BY/0q50 IT5H24uo76mkPkrsiU/dnnYRhpAsEp/VZ+QztQB0Nw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHPxEMuTeHIu+xnqgkIK9aZPYENjuVEqGg25LyZyLv2+4Hdn4807HXeel7iEwqNRoxYdgkzIeLFTHEVmkFj0E0= X-Received: by 2002:a4a:9b1a:0:b0:57b:82d2:8253 with SMTP id a26-20020a4a9b1a000000b0057b82d28253mr15507486ook.3.1696881819331; Mon, 09 Oct 2023 13:03:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20230817105851.501947-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <20230914151636.278641-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com> In-Reply-To: From: Patrick Robb Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 16:03:28 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] app/test: add support for skipping tests To: Aaron Conole Cc: David Marchand , Bruce Richardson , dev@dpdk.org, Thomas Monjalon , Kevin Traynor , Lincoln Lavoie Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000114a1a06074e162e" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org --000000000000114a1a06074e162e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 11:13=E2=80=AFAM Aaron Conole w= rote: > Patrick Robb writes: > > > Thanks, this should help greatly going forward in the community lab. > > > > As it relates to our arm64 unit testing, I will give it a few days (or > longer if needed) for next branches to rebase off of > > main and then re-enable arm64 unit testing with the > eal_flags_file_prefix_autotest added to the skipped list. David > > explained to me on slack that this patch would not likely be a candidat= e > for backporting, so of course LTS will be > > excluded. > > This is in testing area, and maybe it can be considered as an exception > if it allows for improved LTS testing. CC'd Kevin. > > Hello, Yes, backporting would be ideal from a CI perspective because without it we can't run arm64 testing on LTS tests. But I know there are other considerations which also have to be weighed. David also has a patch[1] which should resolve the underlying issue which introduces the failures on the unit test we want to skip. If that patch is accepted, and backported, fixing our original problem with unit testing on our arm testbeds, that's another solution, at least for this specific unit test issue. It would still be nice to have this feature in case we need it otherwise. [1] https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20230821085806.3062613-4-david.= marchand@redhat.com/ --000000000000114a1a06074e162e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 11:13=E2=80=AF= AM Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.co= m> wrote:
Patrick Robb <pr= obb@iol.unh.edu> writes:

> Thanks, this should help greatly going forward in the community lab. >
> As it relates to our arm64 unit testing, I will give it a few days (or= longer if needed) for next branches to rebase off of
> main and then re-enable arm64 unit testing with the eal_flags_file_pre= fix_autotest added to the skipped list. David
> explained to me on slack that this patch would not likely be a candida= te for backporting, so of course LTS will be
> excluded.

This is in testing area, and maybe it can be considered as an exception
if it allows for improved LTS testing.=C2=A0 CC'd Kevin.

Hello,

Yes, backporting would be idea= l from=C2=A0a CI=C2=A0perspective because without it we can't run arm64= testing on LTS tests. But I know there are other considerations which also= have to be weighed.=C2=A0

David also has a patch[= 1] which should resolve the underlying issue which introduces the failures = on the unit test we want to skip. If that patch is accepted, and backported= , fixing our original problem with unit testing on our arm testbeds, that&#= 39;s another solution, at least for this specific unit test issue.

It would still be nice to have this feature in case we nee= d it otherwise.=C2=A0=C2=A0


--000000000000114a1a06074e162e--