On 12/7/20 12:14 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > 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. MAINTAINERS and scripts/get_maintainer.pl doesn't scale well with YAML / JSON... While this files are maintained by the Gitlab subsystem maintainers, how can we had job-specific reviewers?
