On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 12:08 PM Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 11:40 AM Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > It is missing in this revision of the RFC, but the intention is to > > have the gitlab-ci.yml point to a specific commit SHA in the > > gfx-ci/drm-ci[1] tree, to solve the problem of keeping the results in > > sync with the expectations. Ie. a kernel commit would control moving > > to a new version of i-g-t (and eventually deqp and/or piglit), and at > > the same time make any necessary updates in the expectations files. > > Wouldn't it then be better to just have the expectation files in the > ci tree too? The main reason is that we would frequently have situations where both -next and -fixes pointing at the same ci tree commit, but with differing expectations. If we kept the expectations in the ci tree, we'd end up frequently updating the ci tree and then updating the kernel tree to point to the appropriate ci tree version. Additionally, on the mesa side, it has been useful to squash the expectations update into the commit that fixed a bug or added a feature. It provides a connection in git history between code and test results. BR, -R
