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 9FF78A0C46 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2021 17:47:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 978A94013F; Tue, 31 Aug 2021 17:47:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11D7440041 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2021 17:47:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BA535C0263; Tue, 31 Aug 2021 11:47:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 31 Aug 2021 11:47:49 -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=fm2; bh= PvajRXx8spItf8WwkbKFLPIFbuLUhVA70wQG40whF5c=; b=VFuOKNGpqWW9hyG4 Wr/VfOi8DY78LmblM5szNCtOBTW9ztce89ne2yN0qXz1wpT9fMVTPmltDgAXkuAz 6DD6uk8mC+7Milnj9zDqJqhw+RjFgp7tTHyaMzXHIBbhmaM/57Pz3ab0OHw/gBCI iN7+9cf7otdkANJigznxrLDNNteozwXPW7Qct0tUlgP1JleLjPAR+nOkmysXohIe dqY9eE41q//tTNLHcAqfhU3USb7ftnQqUZb7OMVORy5eaSFFFV5upeRpW1xXexsK RyDc1Q9yVlFK35wY2zvn6XrY1ybScxwncWedD5G7+lD9mtHfluv0ovxjocQdO+LV /2HwhA== 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=PvajRXx8spItf8WwkbKFLPIFbuLUhVA70wQG40whF 5c=; b=uEsuHJddgkhizxMQ+vm9kTn4z5Sj4OBwgfDxN+QxB8ssE3wpU1vHG87Aa Ycs7hpjSlj9Lr1Y+ZhzMLvA4M6VcySXudp2ls001Fc/5qac7RwoUDyAq6q7zaDsG YhvRFFMfclZa8EhFh98yG3d4xk17Qb147guxAECczrzalti6OI/TE8dR1DzLhN7t 9y7DHO4EE4bmUvjY8neJVcZs+xk/gRDrcdSiqILdbJCzHkcutZQdo1Hn+sq7Iof/ kD36EKYcoMDcxn49/giBEU/I47DBVlnjaVHqVDJ/FTt079mLM8La/K3FyzYY+wlL bNCCOtkVLAFpHC8G3H7L03j2OqNOg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddruddvuddgleegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtqhertddttdejnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepkeethedtieevhfeigeejleegudefjeehkeekteeuveeiuedvveeu tdejveehveetnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrh homhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 31 Aug 2021 11:47:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Lincoln Lavoie Cc: ci@dpdk.org Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2021 17:47:45 +0200 Message-ID: <3224374.3u8ESuPvME@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <1692874.CEL9UuTRB0@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-ci] Community CI Meeting Minutes 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 Sender: "ci" Then it should not be reported in patchwork. Please let's not add more noise in patchwork. 26/08/2021 18:27, Lincoln Lavoie: > This is specific to patches for DTS, where Intel doesn't have the > infrastructure to run every possible test suite that is included in DTS. > So, the warning is a notice to the submitter and the maintainer(s) the > patch couldn't be tested. It's not really an issue related to the content > of the patch itself (i.e. not about a breaking change or something like > that). >=20 > Cheers, > Lincoln >=20 > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 12:05 PM Thomas Monjalon > wrote: >=20 > > 26/08/2021 15:33, Lincoln Lavoie: > > > * For DTS CI, should authors be notified of skipped testing (i.e. CI > > infrastructure doesn=E2=80=99t support that test suite)? Should this b= e marked as > > a warning in patchwork? Agreed it should do both of these actions, not= ify > > the author and mark the patch as warning in patchworks. > > > > Not sure to understand. > > If a test is not supported, it is not an issue of the patch, > > so why would it be reported in patchwork?