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 30617A0A02; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 18:12:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE8C3140F4B; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 18:12:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 153B3140F3D for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 18:12:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4AE35C00B8; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 13:12:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 25 Mar 2021 13:12:00 -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=fm3; bh= oBJDA0xRehw0QAOWRrrrFJn5bas/io2k1nWyckLB9zo=; b=JUtZrsJN8kLAiroW p7WO1GcRlJkax/ZmJeOp9V2rfnIU/BJi9b6dAZ73n5wVg5+ykgglc2Dbq0sllA6b gKtOVKNLNKJllTh3I0uwRdwyRVJkF+ULu+TFxTqQngRKDmFqK6G1dly3gowJBIZi XhFbQav7m4LZWtCYFFaNoXX55gavTC6az5fYIu+A+QStsITIkR9hkZwXaA15yhS9 GiXODtf+jlszRxDOrKhtvEm4UGpoQ974bqVLWZuPOtyytu94XJjKqe+9b7oUozIM ma/do2WcoJaLl+OVInx0Q2rPUO5ZWKoOA7bUXxeoPtssNMAbUJKNQlzNRx9qUEZ3 L5JF1Q== 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=oBJDA0xRehw0QAOWRrrrFJn5bas/io2k1nWyckLB9 zo=; b=b7464Q1TD9qruWFjjRcC+emz0ep+lf9ykup7nYyyNvISbUcDLY0OzJPpI xsqZ8vekwvHpGw83/XUUpKLXvHpboiFofBjDft5mke6Sg/Aj+uBScfZyu6osYlk/ mlJ6XNgneBdGqGOykYUxBrJ5Rm3Yyb207vX6QlvIV46Csjx9p4GhgkNzbPt/DIwZ okjTQA+87GgQ7XbvZ+Tsht7Dda1OOniDsuENVrJSuo8SUSWikqDwoemlUdiwPDiq 2k+aPLs45B0UlAQAWZhs6225e3T4c6/EG1v1dH5OH0bIUIJM1xA/6Yfjw3S5uYDX qH3Xbq6sQWiWM/OccYpKZFFyR0Ggg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrudehtddgleelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhephfeugeevleetueejudefveejtddutdevhfdvteeghedvleefvefg hfdtgfefjeeinecuffhomhgrihhnpehtrhgrvhhishdqtghirdgtohhmmhhunhhithihpd htrhgrvhhishdqtghirdgtohhmnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucev lhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrsh esmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght 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 93C6B24005A; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 13:11:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com, david.marchand@redhat.com, ruifeng.wang@arm.com, Aaron Conole Cc: dev@dpdk.org Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 18:11:58 +0100 Message-ID: <7406412.c1iilDCem9@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20200416110053.2547791-1-thomas@monjalon.net> <6504633.9roynsBark@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ci: remove aarch64 from Travis jobs X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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" 25/03/2021 17:40, Aaron Conole: > Thomas Monjalon writes: > >> Travis is not reliable for native Arm and PPC: > >> https://travis-ci.community/t/disk-quota-exceeded-on-arm64/7619/6 > >> > >> In order to get reliable Travis reports, > >> the use of Arm machines is removed until Travis fixes it. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon > > > > We managed without applying this patch. > > > > After one year passed, what is the situation today regarding Travis? > > Can we rely on Travis service? > > So far, yes. > > > For which workload? Which architecture? > > I think for all of them. Looking at even the failures which pop up for > the latest patches, they seem like real failures. > > ex: > https://travis-ci.com/github/ovsrobot/dpdk/jobs/493722400 > https://travis-ci.com/github/ovsrobot/dpdk/jobs/493688879 > https://travis-ci.com/github/ovsrobot/dpdk/jobs/493624012 > https://travis-ci.com/github/ovsrobot/dpdk/jobs/493611597 > > These are ABI, and doc failures - different arches, etc. > > Seems like it's quite usable. > > > Aaron, what do you recommend? > > I think we should drop this patch - Travis continues to be useful even > for individual developers checking their own results. It seems the > service works quite a bit better now for the project as well, thanks to > Honnappa and other ARM folks for working with them. Thanks all, patch classified as "Rejected".