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 DE4D6468DA; Wed, 11 Jun 2025 23:10:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7896402D0; Wed, 11 Jun 2025 23:10:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pj1-f48.google.com (mail-pj1-f48.google.com [209.85.216.48]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 198D840156 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2025 23:10:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pj1-f48.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-312028c644bso347732a91.0 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2025 14:10:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; t=1749676249; x=1750281049; 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=AYQtCS3H2H00dSE1dL0YZR4Chbfz0hSzDFutMzsNmgo=; b=EbjX3y02DW7DNh5e3lzfllWEGvx0Q3cyWzypjJvhkkNKnvqJqNccI/YPTvlDNT0FJY uN9SFoQq9Kj/mTZOhSNJIom8PTXwmnlpHYhxVZkZHWVd/Z23yMuFRADJb2942as6Yqrm T7WXDgiA7fLCcAen85xDGEITQl/Kxw9VIQcuw= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1749676249; x=1750281049; 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=AYQtCS3H2H00dSE1dL0YZR4Chbfz0hSzDFutMzsNmgo=; b=KfiFbmyHI8habxY6iJ5x0d0mKFxg8YZ5zPNwDxRv+tyJSiXgJy0X5NXRMJ4etJpMPM wDbatze7zvds5LHFkmeF9fxTVgmQ56G0vCP9afA513vHFgK+u+m9ZSTdvluQ23z/C8kq ahXRxldB1VE91QlkDVFlA15GosQj+ERdFFK7L7jzlwR0ex9vlRWIJVyb/LQEAk/10yyY iuossC+HYxqohhs5EQi7/ZVxEKJVSzBChMLlZwXIl08xfTBQlOwEunEjTvMe4EezjgeK +Za9/9p2WjJ+QT6O90RTsvwixtXHJ7b0Jmm7A2HeCuvJDvxN1xLNTIb9Mt7YqtBeFiE/ A1bg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwHO9eg8HE8IMGpOqZSqzbtia9ZbEL0pw343JAEKjCnnk9nYqqq fRb0cspNFGQR4ijV6Hs1Kw3rpVVCWSbdItRfcwYYYhKUb/Lsf2YzQ7f3qZaB54n26WyBEoRA6ky vcSBFKe/D1kht78BzQyfFYtcbSGovgvCegGTExmcswg== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsj7yM9Z9t/RkuMixv5sr/k2lUnkEDULGiD76g/r+NL/GvQLXnbJSt4QoziOaA 0GNig+MvlQHPP6LF9LTTcoeFtWIPOoKtG7M9UcZmYvGX8JJLn+mPfZf4zAMMk/4rfWf+9NYuTo6 E2E8/JtprJ02Zbc/SbZaCtyjet2xWLN8vuA1OlzRm8HFned3x6SqIJiXcKzns3EPeKP28xkE+Fd KTyu25TNwlHj+0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IE4UuUvXWezQKcguxi6dxfqGpkzl9MVYYeV/brQ816iJMBOF8Gv612uEW/7P8dOEMcM9+bw64Rs8h8MA9NvJaU= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:4d04:b0:311:e731:523a with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-313c06892fbmr815183a91.11.1749676249011; Wed, 11 Jun 2025 14:10:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <24d143d3-4739-457d-bf15-c6224ca21bb0@loongson.cn> In-Reply-To: <24d143d3-4739-457d-bf15-c6224ca21bb0@loongson.cn> From: Patrick Robb Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 17:05:39 -0400 X-Gm-Features: AX0GCFsC85vBV2EGl8J40lVAwA89ZlxarGfibgkPSRVld9IwgHCFsAgLPN40MR8 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Email based retests for the Loongarch lab To: zhoumin Cc: ci@dpdk.org, Aaron Conole , David Marchand , "Brandes, Shai" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004b6cd50637523f77" 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 --0000000000004b6cd50637523f77 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Min Zhou, Thanks for the response and for getting some retest support online! I agree the next reasonable steps are to continue to align out processes, in part so that the lab behavior is predictable according to what is documented on dpdk.org. On Sat, Jun 7, 2025 at 8:50=E2=80=AFPM zhoumin wrote: > Yes, we don't support the rebase argument. Meanwhile, for the sake of > simplicity, the rechecking behavior at Loongson lab is a little different > from the default behavior. we recheck the patches on the latest HEAD of t= he > branch selected by pw_maintainers_cli.py script. This behavior is same to > that of the first testing for the commit at Loongson lab. It's ok to be > consistent with the defualt behavior. Maybe we can support both it and > rebase argument after you have synced some infrastructures. > Good point, we need to make sure the support for the rebase=3D{branch} argument is integrated into the get_reruns.py script in dpdk-ci. The UNH team made that addition and it is available for patch review: https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/ci/patch/20250611205849.72165-1-probb@io= l.unh.edu/ Maybe you can apply it, give it a run and add a tested by tag to the patch if it is working for you? In order to make sure it was working I submitted a placeholder loongson recheck request with the rebase argument (requesting the main branch) included on the DPDK mailing list. Right now if I run the script with the following args it produces this json: python3 tools/get_reruns.py -ts 2025-06-10 --contexts loongarch-compilation output json: { "retests": { "34851": { "contexts": [ "loongarch-compilation" ], "arguments": { "rebase": "main" } } }, "last_comment_timestamp": "2025-06-11T20:29:39.327426" } --0000000000004b6cd50637523f77 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Min = Zhou,

Thanks for the response and for getting=C2=A0some = retest support online! I agree the next reasonable steps=C2=A0are to contin= ue to align out processes, in part so that the lab behavior is predictable = according to what is documented on dpdk.org.=C2=A0

On Sat, Jun 7, 2025 at 8:50=E2=80=AFPM zhoum= in <zhoumin@loo= ngson.cn> wrote:
=20 =20 =20

Yes, we don't support the rebase argument. Meanwhile, for the sa= ke of simplicity, the rechecking behavior at Loongson lab is a little different from the default behavior. we recheck the patches on the latest HEAD of the branch selected by pw_maintainers_cli.py script. This behavior is same to that of the first testing for the commit at Loongson lab. It's ok to be consistent with the defualt behavior. Maybe we can support both it and rebase argument after you have synced some infrastructures.

Good point, we = need to make sure the support for the rebase=3D{branch} argument is integra= ted into the get_reruns.py script in dpdk-ci. The UNH team made that additi= on and it is available for patch review:=C2=A0https:= //patchwork.dpdk.org/project/ci/patch/20250611205849.72165-1-probb@iol.unh.= edu/

Maybe you can apply it, give it a run and= add a tested by tag to the patch if it is working for you? In order to mak= e sure it was working I submitted a placeholder loongson recheck request wi= th the rebase argument (requesting the main branch) included on the DPDK ma= iling list. Right now if I run the script with the following args it produc= es this json:

python3 tools/get_reruns.py -ts 2025= -06-10 --contexts loongarch-compilation

output jso= n:=C2=A0

{
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 "retests": {=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 "34851": {
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 "contexts": [
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 "loongarch-compilation"
=C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ],
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 "arguments": {
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 "rebase": "main"
=C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 }
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 }
=C2= =A0 =C2=A0 },
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 "last_comment_timestamp": "20= 25-06-11T20:29:39.327426"
}
--0000000000004b6cd50637523f77--