On Sun, Mar 3, 2024 at 3:30 AM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. +1 > > 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. You don't even have to do your own builds (although it does help), and can look at e.g. http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/ Kisskb can send out email when builds get broken, and when they get fixed again. I receive such emails for the m68k builds. I have the feeling this is not used up to its full potential yet. My initial plan with the "Build regressions/improvements in ..." emails [1] was to fully automate this, and enable it for the other daily builds (e.g. linux-next), too, but there are only so many hours in a day... [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240226081253.3688538-1-geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
