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 D100DA04FD; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 13:42:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50A931BF89; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 13:42:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-io1-f54.google.com (mail-io1-f54.google.com [209.85.166.54]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE7A41BF88 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 13:42:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-io1-f54.google.com with SMTP id q8so10423311iow.7 for ; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 04:42:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emumba-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=tSQNSaH2O5qTFthlwXVKeoaTMabEPlO8k/el/wru4J4=; b=yZllndJ4WPBUqSFEs0J26c/zJwF0wZwaBmMnQeOSzQvpzqkNngcwlRAGNH6FdWGkmv /EWWmAPpqP4L9duHqOA/ghqhG/n7IQoZkLe3VR7EPh2t8RY37CixHKJLAv6mj00AmFsV jqvSKplOCP1J96dVsgxXyHQ66lV/jwNp9eDtjzOb+qNppncWA2f4YnwWSasC3RVdris6 4tPwQHoHPhBu9Xd2inXdLyfdUIbCoXreXtcFDfncqmFlyA93iNMUCGP4ehGOthvNtovJ NVWha/suutxib6x3KLqfwBEdkCxCpFLvJDeGDJHiPARLwBNGugKq/4l+duElWecEw2B6 UKjw== 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=tSQNSaH2O5qTFthlwXVKeoaTMabEPlO8k/el/wru4J4=; b=mRru3w5Dhz5ZzeRcW8WAh7mM5tMb9rtDngrcUX0sowCs9gkpyyGVa/2LF+7wNUELTN hs6K5ceZD0pcDeznSiJ7gjm6psbGA6OxJkiq9iGBDKMs4Gbo8xyUJ93LvJDlL88qrg/C KZavkGovcKrFyDw3KSV+grymFoyhWZzE0vGDZarkznXFy5whYMHKNtXFG2tkV6+fYcQS POhKrjLkQUpgAeEropULgEWkqdamljxVtYQ7RTSH8COMCvBqUrH5KseSQb9x9SVAm84C kVzTOYnlHvyOB13fbJSe0wyrVM5VkptdY/nJo9mLMrUxRIn1o/WTPJTOfDMHbeqfHiCe hWMQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532GDFjjhZujFJpo3VgtFVEO6m0NKbCkBkDgKGAB+LoCMBaR5j8/ AnwnioVzjssXoj082BFrZgCTooyQ5CeCj3YjYBG2tPIH/rI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwj0NwUYq7eiSKUuuvoVu7wXpZUub0qHNimB29WoMyJPxrJobNlA5VIM8Ens9L0tTI16EWiVhR76UKRUQVh3Zk= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:2f0a:: with SMTP id q10mr22536782iow.134.1591098153217; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 04:42:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200527135914.05e624ff@hermes.lan> In-Reply-To: <20200527135914.05e624ff@hermes.lan> From: Muhammad Bilal Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 16:42:22 +0500 Message-ID: To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: dev@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Which tests are compulsory to PASS for Patch to be accepted X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Thank you for your response. How will we know if a patch is failing because of some failure in the CI infrastructure or due to earlier merge? On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 1:59 AM Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Thu, 28 May 2020 01:13:27 +0500 > Muhammad Bilal wrote: > > > Recently I have submitted patches and some tests were failing on patchwork. > > My question is, which tests are compulsory to pass for a patch to be accepted. > > As in the below mentioned patch, it is accepted while 1 test was still failing. > > http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/70348/ > > > > kind regards. > > Muhammad Bilal > > There are two different issues: > 1. A patch should not get blamed for some failure in the CI infrastructure. > Or collataral damage from an earlier merge. > 2. A patch must not introduce a failure. I.e. if all tests passed before > each patch in a patchset must pass.