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 0D57BA0350 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 09:13:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB3411BE90; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 09:13:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AD1F1BE0C for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 09:13:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 223787B6; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 03:13:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 30 Jun 2020 03:13:17 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm1; bh= X1F2qkCU3D5xe1V8281PofgLygH/zRMarE7GptcHFRU=; b=SBMlvYKlKYcsIIpW DG6vv0qUu/XvUa3Z9Qa0WLhIAuiHD+Mj+lb4NFoBmtViYUTMw3rXh5mfWZPT11zB zGR4y5wUk8tytPj+ZP6QDEr07dmi5x/9Sd8C4rWL9WZgVTs0I4MakwYyuVnMbG/p avrCRkzmFloNuDrxRIcWY5+4KY8TgYM/6YBNS28iY9xgKcY9m135dUcNZ5I/A6o8 ySV+uCaRUxKzT4nlqFs2CeEPRkXbHJUqtUar2I9XeBZIn9QD7XMxE3zpmbqf1Fun MOTaPcFKY6PjZ2l/9iyuo73XipyauR6UEU0Xatb4cKIyIF+0UQtRFKvAVOw5iiJz PuIesg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=X1F2qkCU3D5xe1V8281PofgLygH/zRMarE7GptcHF RU=; b=P9IqTqOkbKQMhvDZL4xnW//fMMlPTAZvEKu0/bh5nZP7TdtKQG1RvQM1U 8OIrc1mUXns7FbkJkTg/5SCFIq9BdrcleyEb6Li1rYU+lahDslg1VesxLqRUkPoj 7Xr24XZKOyCKQ2yqfNOK0E5cAubqQPeE7eYKge8XnGd0I8BExC031Z7yR4KH8vS/ 9RiCJ0B5rxEvFFolr4Xnu3Jc9qWsqlTsMlifS/TgIRfGF+kgMYq0czNk5FC3GVss ToQqaMZWMd+uVEdXnbVce8BoQJEiJT5zuWsUYzAEjBcr4h+hxa43pREsxr+NVk9E VqoAn0DeK3NKSqxN9+5Sboac4+nVg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrvddttddguddulecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc ggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefgeelgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdej ueeiiedvffegheenucfkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrh fuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgr lhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 797773280065; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 03:13:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Chen, Zhaoyan" Cc: David Marchand , "ci@dpdk.org" , sys_stv Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 09:13:13 +0200 Message-ID: <3058617.Y82Z3WsNMf@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <6471530.9lzsYzkM2H@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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" I replied in Bugzilla. Let's not duplicate the discussion please. At this point, we should continue in Bugzilla. Thanks 30/06/2020 07:59, Chen, Zhaoyan: > Hi all, > > I have updated the info for this issue in bugzilla. > > > We have re-built the patchset. It was passed. The root cause is that patches in the series are disorder by patchid. (patch 7/9 and patch 8/9). Usually, we apply patches by the order of patch id in a series. > > Why the issue is exposed this time? > > Meet 2 conditions, > - the patches are disorder in the series > - the disordered patches are modified same file > > Solution > - Change applying patch order by patch date, rather than patch id in patchwork. > But we don't know if patch date is unique and ordered for each patch in the series. > We need patchwork document to confirm. So far, its good. > > > For Thomas' suggestion, "sending the series report only on the last patch of the series", currently, I find all reports iol-* are sent to the first patch in the series. Shall we align? and shall we get feedback from all maintainers or developers in the community? > > > > Regards, > Zhaoyan Chen > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thomas Monjalon > > Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 6:24 PM > > To: Chen, Zhaoyan > > Cc: ci@dpdk.org; sys_stv ; David Marchand > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] Failures reported by Intel CI for series 10551 > > > > 26/06/2020 09:43, David Marchand: > > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 5:03 AM Chen, Zhaoyan > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, David, > > > > > > > > For your question, "Is it normal to see all patches with the exact same > > test report?" > > > > Yes, we always test a series, rather than a single patch. You can > > > > see the exact same report on any patch in a series. (it's > > > > convenient, you don't need backward to search the header of the > > > > series, then check result) > > > > > > Convenience is subject to interpretation :-). > > > Other CI systems send a single report which is more sane for me. > > > > I think these tests have 2 purposes: > > - sending quick error feedback to the author > > - check that all is green before merging In both cases we don't > > need to have the same report duplicated, because we check for failures in > > all patches anyway. > > > > I suggest sending the series report only on the last patch of the series. > > > >