On 3/2/24 14:10, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 12:21 PM Linus Torvalds > <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 01:23, Nikolai Kondrashov <spbnick@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> However, I think a better approach would be *not* to add the .gitlab-ci.yaml >>> file in the root of the source tree, but instead change the very same repo >>> setting to point to a particular entry YAML, *inside* the repo (somewhere >>> under "ci" directory) instead. >> >> I really don't want some kind of top-level CI for the base kernel project. >> >> We already have the situation that the drm people have their own ci >> model. II'm ok with that, partly because then at least the maintainers >> of that subsystem can agree on the rules for that one subsystem. >> >> I'm not at all interested in having something that people will then >> either fight about, or - more likely - ignore, at the top level >> because there isn't some global agreement about what the rules are. >> >> For example, even just running checkpatch is often a stylistic thing, >> and not everybody agrees about all the checkpatch warnings. >> > > While checkpatch is indeed of arguable value, I think it would help a > lot not having to bother about the persistent _build_ failures on > 32-bit systems. You mentioned the fancy drm CI system above, but they > don't run tests and not even test builds on 32-bit targets, which has > repeatedly caused (and currently does cause) build failures in drm > code when trying to build, say, arm:allmodconfig in linux-next. Most > trivial build failures in linux-next (and, yes, sometimes mainline) > could be prevented with a simple generic CI. Yes, definitely. Thanks for bringing that up. > Sure, argue against checkpatch as much as you like, but the code > should at least _build_, and it should not be necessary for random > people to report build failures to the submitters. I do 110 randconfig builds nightly (10 each of 11 $ARCH/$BITS). That's about all the horsepower that I have. and I am not a CI. :) So I see quite a bit of what you are saying. It seems that Arnd is in the same boat. -- #Randy
