Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Bjorn, do you think there's anything we can do about these kinda > misleading CI failures for bpf stuff? Some stuff that touches bpf > definitely is worth us building, but should we try and build it on top > of the bpf tree instead? IMO: The way to go is enabling RV support in the BPF CI (I'll expand on this in Puranjay's later mail), and ignore BPF series for the RV patchwork CI. I think having multiple trees in the RV CI is not worth the pain... Sort of related is that I think it could be worthwhile only building series that had some human interaction (a pair of eyes -- "yes, this does make sense to build"). Right now we're just building everything, and we have to pay (money *and* time) for it. ...and then the BPF series would e.g. not be built at the RV PW CI. (But mostly me thinking out loud! ;-)) Björn
