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 1CBDB468E0; Thu, 12 Jun 2025 14:43:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 160F040F16; Thu, 12 Jun 2025 14:43:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pj1-f41.google.com (mail-pj1-f41.google.com [209.85.216.41]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0038940ED4 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2025 14:43:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pj1-f41.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-3138e64b3fcso855314a91.2 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2025 05:43:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; t=1749732210; x=1750337010; 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=7qgvZj1U9rxJHUd24wXmXPqrXEfS76PxWSrqLDR8i+k=; b=LStbrvw0hxDw/SK7FzSWqzaZZt72xYHanTNIJBkL0RMv/SpTmA6SIrXA9cSNlJqMFp bj7l2coKEjfRzwdtQ2pXgzs7Mq82+3SXPaXVLqP4QeSXAQ6sInTw7u4qYYu6Xv7WzgTR 8mCxOc+y6mduUiml8XyXH1XCF2xVU+W0JtP7k= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1749732210; x=1750337010; 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=7qgvZj1U9rxJHUd24wXmXPqrXEfS76PxWSrqLDR8i+k=; b=lLzIgQlyEcyVLl9y8wg6vqCnCmlchz64py3PuZOn/xMFCraxQNiZbu43jEZ/MPDQEn RRpvEzMMFb6cil0IKlbC9btVTfoM3y6QLgBOIJYjW7rVD9ZUhuzPKLWFthzjJ4spU1O9 M7T5q5GFEPguRzV2wTbd988iPlo6TblilJDR4eY939mMwZV8kqP9+V/OTvzM/IRm0AS9 /aiq9k02JITTpeZSqdA4ofi+y+fuWa8kMR33Zqe1oQgweLkegXr653p5bXlIYM71+8wX g4stMvz7YKnZSZV9UtS8BcZT7fU1Iph8dsV+FTy94TB6X3VYR6vm/gi7WeZrBrbwnQ5r /msA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUEu3qLnCKeDMPTvtPCRexljKyBKYu3bHXCek3QuowUtmd+iFI7VCOSxu0oy+A9EKiQuw==@dpdk.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YycTi66ierTlQdCgVvJCKR7fbuX9hWn0/F65h6HAHQKov96p+Yf GIb9Xnf42c7I4mjow+fOpsKC76BRmk5BP7fdtFnHhYU/xpJT74bYIcapUAMhLYBMUx0/ZMh3qml 7o91cMJoqAbkMkdU2x3iPrOYtfISDMs/x2zhLAqdMlQ== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvULvsLoAXEygJCSZX8YO3+N9D9XTfZMv/5cC5obaCGfFioBVINUWKoEddr4Lb qrjOFRsIZthhKkhC3bINs8l+oBnZAkADDCe7M60LsWcDuJp3Gx3/tcCdcuujUPFEq9PAK5J4pUA DL4klM9vCBa219huAvUazGVcfHVSOag6UnIxj4q07zmrFnV6rAfUeIMuxmDTvLm98a79vIcSuBg A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHQkBW0HpDFHAcY7ojF0AYe0F7Qrx193HNQ7iYDCWvIYqLTPkRUwbehuylH/xCMhkuowELTEV76rBTxZNCe4Hg= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:3d87:b0:311:c939:c848 with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-313c04a1911mr5502806a91.0.1749732210061; Thu, 12 Jun 2025 05:43:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <37fcfcd5c17f4fcbb212ffd6f2b20451@amazon.com> In-Reply-To: <37fcfcd5c17f4fcbb212ffd6f2b20451@amazon.com> From: Patrick Robb Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 08:38:20 -0400 X-Gm-Features: AX0GCFvs5MA-skEVPrrqyAjjKgZuN1BV4o8WjuLkpHQFhXrzB7dLECtxH-LOiYw Message-ID: Subject: Re: AWS lab meson test fails To: "Brandes, Shai" Cc: Bruce Richardson , "ci@dpdk.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d5463106375f468e" 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 --000000000000d5463106375f468e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Shai, On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 6:20=E2=80=AFAM Brandes, Shai = wrote: > Hi Patrick, > > The failure status appears to be due to an issue applying the patch to th= e > release notes RTS file. > We suspect that the patch may have been applied to the incorrect DPDK tre= e. > Could you advise if there is any specific metadata we should be using to > determine the correct tree for applying the patch? > Here is the script which should be used to determine the tree to apply the patchseries to: https://git.dpdk.org/tools/dpdk-ci/tree/tools/pw_maintainers_cli.py Even better than using that directly, though, is using this create series artifact script, which will handle running pw_maintainers_cli.py and applying the series from patchwork for you: https://git.dpdk.org/tools/dpdk-ci/tree/tools/create_series_artifact.py The process create_series_artifact.py uses is: 1. Try to apply to the tree suggested by pw_maintainers_cli.py. If successful, proceed. 2. If there was an apply failure in 1, try to apply again, this time on main. If successful, proceed. 3. If 1 and 2 failed, indicate that there was an apply failure. Also, if your automation failed to apply the patch, the best thing is to report "_apply patch failure_" in your test_report email, and bail out of running testing (so don't run meson test in this case). And then as a separate matter, I see you mentioned the same sort of .rst apply failure situation was seen on a patch you submitted recently. We do not currently have a strategy for mitigating this, but perhaps we should develop one. Do you have any ideas? I can also raise this discussion during the CI meeting. Thanks Shai. --000000000000d5463106375f468e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Shai,

On Thu,= Jun 12, 2025 at 6:20=E2=80=AFAM Brandes, Shai <shaibran@amazon.com> wrote:
Hi Patrick,

The failure status appears to be due to an issue applying the patch to the = release notes RTS file.
We suspect that the patch may have been applied to the incorrect DPDK tree.=
Could you advise if there is any specific metadata we should be using to de= termine the correct tree for applying the patch?

<= /div>
Here is the script which should be used to determine the tree to = apply the patchseries to:=C2=A0https://git.dpdk.org/tools/dpdk-ci/tree= /tools/pw_maintainers_cli.py

Even better than = using that directly, though, is using this create series artifact script, w= hich will handle running pw_maintainers_cli.py and applying the series from= patchwork for you:=C2=A0https://git.dpdk.org/tools/dpdk-ci/tree/t= ools/create_series_artifact.py

The process cre= ate_series_artifact.py uses is:

1. Try to apply to= the tree suggested by pw_maintainers_cli.py. If successful, proceed.
=
2. If there was an apply failure in 1, try to apply again, this time o= n main. If successful, proceed.
3. If 1 and 2 failed, indicate th= at there was an apply failure.

Also, if your autom= ation failed to apply the patch, the best thing is to report "_apply p= atch failure_" in your test_report email, and bail out of running test= ing (so don't run meson test in this case).
=C2=A0
= And then as a separate matter, I see you mentioned the same sort of .rst ap= ply failure situation was seen on a patch you submitted recently. We do not= currently have a strategy for mitigating this, but perhaps we should devel= op one. Do you have any ideas? I can also raise this discussion during the = CI meeting.

Thanks Shai.
--000000000000d5463106375f468e--