On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 10:44 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 11:51:37AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 10:47 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 11:38:30AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 09:32:44AM GMT, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 10:25:25AM -0300, Helen Koike wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 24/06/2024 02:34, Vignesh Raman wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 15/03/24 22:50, Rob Clark wrote: > > > > > > > > Basically, I often find myself needing to merge CI patches on top of > > > > > > > > msm-next in order to run CI, and then after a clean CI run, reset HEAD > > > > > > > > back before the merge and force-push. Which isn't really how things > > > > > > > > should work. > > > > > > > > > > This sounds more like you want an integration tree like drm-tip. Get msm > > > > > branches integrated there, done. Backmerges just for integration testing > > > > > are not a good idea indeed. > > > > But AFAIU this doesn't help for pre-merge testing, ie. prior to a > > patch landing in msm-next > > > > My idea was to have a drm-ci-next managed similar to drm-misc-next, if > > we have needed drm/ci patches we could push them to drm-ci-next, and > > then merge that into the driver tree (along with a PR from drm-ci-next > > to Dave). > > I guess I'm confused about what kind of pre-merge testing we're talking > about then ... Or maybe this just doesn't work too well with the linux > kernel. The model is that you have some pile of trees, they're split up, > and testing of all the trees together is done in integration trees like > linux-next or drm-tip. pre-merge: for msm we've been collecting up patches from list into a fast-forward MR which triggers CI before merging to msm-next/msm-fixes Ideally drm-misc and other trees would do similar, we'd catch more regressions that way. For example, in msm-next the nodebugfs build is currently broken, because we merged drm-misc-next at a time when komeda was broken: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/60575681#L9520 If drm-misc was using pre-merge CI this would have been caught and the offending patch dropped. BR, -R > Criss-cross merging of trees just for integration testing is no-go. And > that seems to be the only reason you want drm-ci-next? > > Also, this sounds more like msm being in a separate tree is the pain point > here, and solving "we have too many trees" by adding more isn't a good > idea ... > > Or I'm just totally confused. > -Sima > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > http://blog.ffwll.ch
