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 BF3E346C66; Fri, 1 Aug 2025 03:29:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F3B54027A; Fri, 1 Aug 2025 03:29:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.loongson.cn (mail.loongson.cn [114.242.206.163]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E37740263 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2025 03:29:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from loongson.cn (unknown [10.20.42.143]) by gateway (Coremail) with SMTP id _____8BxIK9+GIxo9mw2AQ--.39949S3; Fri, 01 Aug 2025 09:29:34 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.20.42.143] (unknown [10.20.42.143]) by front1 (Coremail) with SMTP id qMiowJCxocJ7GIxorlgwAA--.43223S3; Fri, 01 Aug 2025 09:29:34 +0800 (CST) Subject: Re: Email based retests for the Loongarch lab To: Patrick Robb Cc: ci@dpdk.org, Aaron Conole , David Marchand , "Brandes, Shai" References: <24d143d3-4739-457d-bf15-c6224ca21bb0@loongson.cn> <123907a4-bfa2-180d-7abd-fe4c498c5381@loongson.cn> <404eaac9-72da-ffba-3d59-eb2617df03b8@loongson.cn> From: zhoumin Message-ID: <47f559d8-7268-9f85-1024-36468c9cef4e@loongson.cn> Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 09:27:38 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux loongarch64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------C4D8F43A2F64BFF767A28C8D" Content-Language: en-US X-CM-TRANSID: qMiowJCxocJ7GIxorlgwAA--.43223S3 X-CM-SenderInfo: 52kr3ztlq6z05rqj20fqof0/1tbiAgEBAWiLBYYSxgABs2 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Uk129KBj93XoWxJFWfGrW5Ary5tryrArWftFc_yoW5Ar47pF yfAa1S9r1DArykGwn7Zw4UAry5uF95KFW5JFy8CryrCwn8GFy8trWSya1qv347Zryfur12 vrWFywnxZFZ8A3gCm3ZEXasCq-sJn29KB7ZKAUJUUUUU529EdanIXcx71UUUUU7KY7ZEXa sCq-sGcSsGvfJ3UbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy29KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUv0b4IE77IF4wAF F20E14v26r1j6r4UM7CY07I20VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r 1Y6r17M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rwA2F7IY1VAKz4vEj48ve4kI8wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAF wI0_Gr0_Xr1l84ACjcxK6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Gr0_Cr1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv67 AKxVW8Jr0_Cr1UM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVCY1x0267AKxVW8Jr0_Cr1UM2AIxVAIcxkEcVAq 07x20xvEncxIr21l57IF6xkI12xvs2x26I8E6xACxx1lYx0E2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_JrI_Jr ylYx0Ex4A2jsIE14v26r1j6r4UMcvjeVCFs4IE7xkEbVWUJVW8JwACjcxG0xvEwIxGrwCj r7xvwVCIw2I0I7xG6c02F41lc7I2V7IY0VAS07AlzVAYIcxG8wCF04k20xvY0x0EwIxGrw CFx2IqxVCFs4IE7xkEbVWUJVW8JwC20s026c02F40E14v26r106r1rMI8I3I0E7480Y4vE 14v26r106r1rMI8E67AF67kF1VAFwI0_JF0_Jw1lIxkGc2Ij64vIr41lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2 IY67AKxVWUJVWUCwCI42IY6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lIxAIcVCF04k26cxK x2IYs7xG6r1j6r1xMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIE14v26r1j6r4UMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI 0_Jr0_GrUvcSsGvfC2KfnxnUUI43ZEXa7IU14rW5UUUUU== 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------C4D8F43A2F64BFF767A28C8D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Patrick Robb, On 2025/7/25 10:24PM, Patrick Robb wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 8:50 AM zhoumin > wrote: > > Hi Patrick Robb, > > On 2025/7/9 8:49AM, Patrick Robb wrote: >> Hi Zhoumin, >> >> Aaron did approve the get_reruns.py patch for the rebase arg and >> merge it to dpdk-ci. So, you are good to pull that into your >> dpdk-ci fork. >> > Thanks for your contributions. I have used this script to support > the retest with rebase arg in Loongson lab. >> On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 12:16 AM zhoumin > > wrote: >> >>> Maybe you can apply it, give it a run and add a tested by >>> tag to the patch if it is working for you? >> Yes, I have tested it and it is working for me. This patch >> has a little changes in the inputs and outputs to >> get_reruns.py, and I need to make corresponding changes to >> our current implementation of retest. >>> >> Okay, thanks. When you get the free time to implement these >> change please ping me so I know we are ready for any next steps >> (like updating the labs recheck support status on the DPDK website). > We support the rebase arg now when request to retest. But there > maybe a little difference between Loongson lab and other labs. We > recheck the patches on the latest HEAD of the branch specified by > rebase arg if has or selected by pw_maintainers_cli.py script. I > want to know if there will be any problems with this behaviour? Is > it acceptable? > > > The behavior you describe is correct - when the rebase argument is > used, the patch should be applied to HEAD of the branch specified by > the rebase arg. > > However, I do believe there is a discrepancy in our labs behavior when > it comes to retests which are submitted without the rebase argument. > In this case, UNH lab, AWS, and GitHub are running retests on the > original patch artifacts without re-applying to the current HEAD at > the time of the retest. On the other hand, I believe Loongson does > re-apply to HEAD even when the rebase argument is not specified. I > think in an ideal world our behavior would be uniform across the labs. > What that would require in this case is either: > > 1. Loongson changes to retesting without re-apply on HEAD when no > rebase argument is given (unclear how much work this is) I'm glad to say Loongson lab has changed to retesting without re-apply on HEAD when no rebase argument is given. We recorded the commit ID of the base for the series to test during the first test and use it as the base to retest if no rebase argument is specified. We also ensure that the patch will be applied to HEAD of the branch specified by the rebase argument if it exists. > OR > 2. The other labs change their behavior to just re-apply on HEAD for > every retest, regardless of the rebase argument situation (probably > not a lot of implementation effort, but does reduce user flexibility a > little). > > Sounds like a good topic to discuss at an upcoming CI meeting. :) > > I will send the dpdk-web patch noting that you have added rebase > coverage. Thanks Min Zhou. > > --------------C4D8F43A2F64BFF767A28C8D Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi Patrick Robb,

On 2025/7/25 10:24PM, Patrick Robb wrote:


On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 8:50 AM zhoumin <zhoumin@loongson.cn> wrote:

Hi Patrick Robb,

On 2025/7/9 8:49AM, Patrick Robb wrote:
Hi Zhoumin,

Aaron did approve the get_reruns.py patch for the rebase arg and merge it to dpdk-ci. So, you are good to pull that into your dpdk-ci fork.

Thanks for your contributions. I have used this script to support the retest with rebase arg in Loongson lab.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 12:16 AM zhoumin <zhoumin@loongson.cn> wrote:
Maybe you can apply it, give it a run and add a tested by tag to the patch if it is working for you?
Yes, I have tested it and it is working for me. This patch has a little changes in the inputs and outputs to get_reruns.py, and I need to make corresponding changes to our current implementation of retest.

Okay, thanks. When you get the free time to implement these change please ping me so I know we are ready for any next steps (like updating the labs recheck support status on the DPDK website).
We support the rebase arg now when request to retest. But there maybe a little difference between Loongson lab and other labs. We recheck the patches on the latest HEAD of the branch specified by rebase arg if has or selected by pw_maintainers_cli.py script. I want to know if there will be any problems with this behaviour? Is it acceptable?

The behavior you describe is correct - when the rebase argument is used, the patch should be applied to HEAD of the branch specified by the rebase arg.

However, I do believe there is a discrepancy in our labs behavior when it comes to retests which are submitted without the rebase argument. In this case, UNH lab, AWS, and GitHub are running retests on the original patch artifacts without re-applying to the current HEAD at the time of the retest. On the other hand, I believe Loongson does re-apply to HEAD even when the rebase argument is not specified. I think in an ideal world our behavior would be uniform across the labs. What that would require in this case is either:

1. Loongson changes to retesting without re-apply on HEAD when no rebase argument is given (unclear how much work this is)
I'm glad to say Loongson lab has changed to retesting without re-apply on HEAD when no rebase argument is given. We recorded the commit ID of the base for the series to test during the first test and use it as the base to retest if no rebase argument is specified. We also ensure that the patch will be applied to HEAD of the branch specified by the rebase argument if it exists.
OR
2. The other labs change their behavior to just re-apply on HEAD for every retest, regardless of the rebase argument situation (probably not a lot of implementation effort, but does reduce user flexibility a little).

Sounds like a good topic to discuss at an upcoming CI meeting. :)

I will send the dpdk-web patch noting that you have added rebase coverage. Thanks Min Zhou.
 
 
--------------C4D8F43A2F64BFF767A28C8D--