On 12/7/20 11:34 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 11:26:58AM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >> On 12/7/20 11:25 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: >>> On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 06:46:01AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: >>>> On 06/12/2020 19.55, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>>>> Cross-build s390x target with only KVM accelerator enabled. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> .gitlab-ci.d/crossbuilds-kvm-s390x.yml | 6 ++++++ >>>>> .gitlab-ci.yml | 1 + >>>>> MAINTAINERS | 1 + >>>>> 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+) >>>>> create mode 100644 .gitlab-ci.d/crossbuilds-kvm-s390x.yml >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/.gitlab-ci.d/crossbuilds-kvm-s390x.yml b/.gitlab-ci.d/crossbuilds-kvm-s390x.yml >>>>> new file mode 100644 >>>>> index 00000000000..1731af62056 >>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>> +++ b/.gitlab-ci.d/crossbuilds-kvm-s390x.yml >>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ >>>>> +cross-s390x-kvm: >>>>> + extends: .cross_accel_build_job >>>>> + variables: >>>>> + IMAGE: debian-s390x-cross >>>>> + TARGETS: s390x-softmmu >>>>> + ACCEL_CONFIGURE_OPTS: --disable-tcg >>>>> diff --git a/.gitlab-ci.yml b/.gitlab-ci.yml >>>>> index 573afceb3c7..a69619d7319 100644 >>>>> --- a/.gitlab-ci.yml >>>>> +++ b/.gitlab-ci.yml >>>>> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ include: >>>>> - local: '/.gitlab-ci.d/crossbuilds.yml' >>>>> - local: '/.gitlab-ci.d/crossbuilds-kvm-x86.yml' >>>>> - local: '/.gitlab-ci.d/crossbuilds-kvm-arm.yml' >>>>> + - local: '/.gitlab-ci.d/crossbuilds-kvm-s390x.yml' >>>> >>>> KVM code is already covered by the "cross-s390x-system" job, but an >>>> additional compilation test with --disable-tcg makes sense here. I'd then >>>> rather name it "cross-s390x-no-tcg" or so instead of "cross-s390x-kvm". >>>> >>>> And while you're at it, I'd maybe rather name the new file just >>>> crossbuilds-s390x.yml and also move the other s390x related jobs into it? >>> >>> I don't think we really should split it up so much - just put these >>> jobs in the existing crosbuilds.yml file. >> >> Don't we want to leverage MAINTAINERS file? > > As mentioned in the cover letter, I think this is mis-using the MAINTAINERS > file to try to represent something different. > > The MAINTAINERS file says who is responsible for the contents of the .yml > file, which is the CI maintainers, because we want a consistent gitlab > configuration as a whole, not everyone doing their own thing. > > MAINTAINERS doesn't say who is responsible for making sure the actual > jobs that run are passing, which is potentially a completely different > person. If we want to track that, it is not the MAINTAINERS file. Thanks, I was expecting subsystem maintainers would worry about the CI jobs, but you made it clear this should be different persons who look after CI. I understand it is better to have no maintainer than to have incorrect maintainer.
