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 44F2746C73; Fri, 1 Aug 2025 15:55:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24F4440662; Fri, 1 Aug 2025 15:55:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pj1-f45.google.com (mail-pj1-f45.google.com [209.85.216.45]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB2D04065A for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2025 15:55:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pj1-f45.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-320dfa8cfa3so1499617a91.3 for ; Fri, 01 Aug 2025 06:55:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; t=1754056516; x=1754661316; 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=MhfDAqqQLA3s11D62A+9awq8ziiziNbnWQ2UnYkuIkA=; b=i5SyDUyOvlbXgwwPqI2PcFh9P1SGewbUUiVApXwVu3v3e0pjkrWQL9CgGjTUltxqH7 OuV38vCQqF5SXwfVheHDAFb5amqjls9Aida0UHy1Dwn2z2HL4NuHMMtR/G0GaoRPbaJH xmQUAcgxF2OMjkC/damz8lTNX+IaG92ZkXdfE= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1754056516; x=1754661316; 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=MhfDAqqQLA3s11D62A+9awq8ziiziNbnWQ2UnYkuIkA=; b=aulw4UmAtJFtcISTTSPdfIAjyBH0hgpHrwbCwYE1HLh7IdUEWiKFv1DgLjWyvzLlGZ YDU/fd6y3oOn/65FRIgOOTVdfcmmm9t3pvXmGEEeIBjPRwGmE1gVROp2VXfzfX/7/i4l jyXLWs/SIoft7OI2jOipdjCYqxcvdtGCnkqet17fOlpmEWqusGoG/ae2s6OK03sttBTi kBvsLI8y9nu3GZQd++dXFes4XuB5ibY5lKiPXpAuM2BXhe0NQ6V1WQCkImNOf4+kdiBc bnI5B+bZj2Ocngn1cwDuhdGAcs/ZidLUKaRWwLzNal23MCZnIwxT+UuGhRh8+vQfx+jy IHPA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwhCdUGWmd4pbM+qr4jvxJ+q6/Yfsz5zkxpDR5Alt0fx5s69iFn gti3BAHtQpT95EKXGrG60ubQISeE9/e7rozko8ekUqqi5Z17cbOBlGhssfvWNNqtW4ErNq2mh23 Phg4KYMIV1n8y2SQZiWQKX2EZOBGOghpK1/0OuoMqaQ== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsE7mi59doq2n8tXtfbzPRdVBKkGM1ByHx6yU9Hb+2hVMSMoSvSzXgIecClHI2 sFwwK1p/1aSAKyRyc8Xl+yk5Fy/RnR7iYn1yHR/nEt0GVm7RHdj+QO39NwzQ7LEIWiksyvvGzRa 6nzhjTpjxULqjUVa6FF4h+HH3E5s+YR0p3baG6G468eQPPusbpCvfI8XFkz8tDZCCjea5+kx46K 7/RxqGq+lUFb5Zcrl5vV4pD5TuCEqz89QIaV2eoKPghVj0SNFo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEG/BzM2T5VoOrTwFnR2z7afSO/PL1pXYZGxyc6vpBUBr/OtGcj+tr9/aCEikFYRxEln4dD79974qhTQPc+UYk= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:3890:b0:31f:2ee3:1ab7 with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-31f5de65667mr13657993a91.32.1754056515841; Fri, 01 Aug 2025 06:55:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <24d143d3-4739-457d-bf15-c6224ca21bb0@loongson.cn> <123907a4-bfa2-180d-7abd-fe4c498c5381@loongson.cn> <404eaac9-72da-ffba-3d59-eb2617df03b8@loongson.cn> <47f559d8-7268-9f85-1024-36468c9cef4e@loongson.cn> In-Reply-To: <47f559d8-7268-9f85-1024-36468c9cef4e@loongson.cn> From: Patrick Robb Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 09:49:06 -0400 X-Gm-Features: Ac12FXxmPUYP4vQQtMlbHlv-a6cBrkl7ZPtqeBx1zCOfIKRWdf9h8J14-eI928A 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="0000000000008b0df4063b4e1b98" 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 --0000000000008b0df4063b4e1b98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 9:29=E2=80=AFPM zhoumin wrote= : > Hi Patrick Robb, > On 2025/7/25 10:24PM, Patrick Robb wrote: > > > >> > 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 thi= s > 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. > Thanks that sounds perfect. :) > >> --0000000000008b0df4063b4e1b98 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Thu, Jul 31,= 2025 at 9:29=E2=80=AFPM zhoumin <zhoumin@loongson.cn> wrote:
=20 =20 =20

Hi Patrick Robb,

On 2025/7/25 10:24PM, Patrick Robb wrote:
=20



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.


Thanks that sounds perfect. :)

--0000000000008b0df4063b4e1b98--