From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92FEAA0597; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 15:37:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C0AF1C240; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 15:37:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C88F1C23D for ; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 15:37:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id F03E45C2EF6; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 09:37:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 09 Apr 2020 09:37:09 -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=mesmtp; bh=Lx5l4O71cXqbq1dfYmYjGqGM9zgZxu1ZMHLF0LRY7dk=; b=kz8gFvjGLWAj VDpEZ2eOFQZG8aXWM/330ae0ZIz5XB5nBbCGqSZv0R/3daoHh2rnWLSghV4WPiBM yj99lBcCcSC/rRa0Rh0U/1rQObZmW3Om6Jr3Y4YiVaJyqXBYzPToPGM6QyllrsJE YjbJNwNLzSqfSqIH4qauGDLlS1/+Jco= 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=fm2; bh=Lx5l4O71cXqbq1dfYmYjGqGM9zgZxu1ZMHLF0LRY7 dk=; b=Y/QnQd4xl2LB1Ka6xaFdA+snhcVtT1ygKPJ4To+GSQDxTh31/O/fNrgAn X7+XxHsg0w1soPZIS1W6kYsNPFUfsaly6wv8PII0P3QiFEvi1/CgmhM5BCwTnHge Vd8RLDom/1C3YCtwmMs+csh3rEJg8u+4ptoRc2OjNO6Jfd2msFootjemUOlNSsW6 OF3wu0J+nAp9YFOouSYxOptBAzr3JQdaMRFLCIeOJuLv1RTesYCydiuzuF/v8/Qs NeHjrssR7x1sNJlKT30oDz7AaeNpOm3Yklg77o2BQ5jUX0TMGYmSlsxPY6H4SBgZ 5+5KKN5v+MIxpEzv/AU2BOGtPPFXw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrudelgdeiudcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucfkph epjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgepudenucfrrghr rghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E7A6E3060057; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 09:37:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Neil Horman Cc: Bruce Richardson , Ray Kinsella , dev@dpdk.org, david.marchand@redhat.com Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 15:37:08 +0200 Message-ID: <3338431.V25eIC5XRa@thomas> In-Reply-To: <20200409130256.GA393692@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> References: <20200408195616.335004-1-nhorman@tuxdriver.com> <1737651.3VsfAaAtOV@thomas> <20200409130256.GA393692@hmswarspite.think-freely.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCHv2] Remove validate-abi.sh from tree X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 09/04/2020 15:02, Neil Horman: > On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 12:59:50PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 09/04/2020 12:45, Ray Kinsella: > > > On 09/04/2020 11:43, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 06:39:54AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 08:57:34AM +0100, Ray Kinsella wrote: > > > >>> On 08/04/2020 20:56, Neil Horman wrote: > > > >>>> +The syntax of the ``check-abi.sh`` utility is:: > > > >>>> + > > > >>>> + ./devtools/check-abi.sh > > > >>> > > > >>> (from v1 feedback) > > > >>> Could we simplify this all greatly, by telling people to use the meson/ninja build, > > > >>> so they get this checking out of the box, without all the headache below? > > > >>> > > > >> I think bruce noted that was never merged, correct? > > > >> > > > > Yep, correct. :-( > > > > > > apologies, was there a reason? > > > > Because build tool job is building, not checking. > > It would be wrong to make (slow) checks mandatory in all builds. > > > > The need is to enforce checking ABI. > > The result is already published by Travis in patchwork and in an > > email to the author I believe. > > Not checking email and patchwork is not a good excuse. > > > > Patchwork must be a mandatory read for everybody for all checks > > in general. Let's not give up on general CI workflow. > > > But it would be helpful to at least codify the commands in the example patch > into a build target, for the convienience of local checking prior to CI > submission, no? I don't understand what you mean.