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. 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. Guenter > I would suggest the CI project be separate from the kernel. > > And having that slack channel that is restricted to particular > companies is just another sign of this whole disease. > > If you want to make a google/microsoft project to do kernel CI, then > more power to you, but don't expect it to be some kind of agreed-upon > kernel project when it's a closed system. > > Linus >
