On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 08:17:22AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 8:05 AM Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 07:46:34AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 1:24 AM Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > [ ... ] > > > > > > > > If anything, it's more of a side-effect to the push for COMPILE_TEST > > > > than anything. > > > > > > > > > > If the drm subsystem maintainers don't want people to build it with > > > COMPILE_TEST while at the same time not limiting it to platforms where > > > it doesn't even build, I'd suggest making it dependent on > > > !COMPILE_TEST. > > > > I don't think we want anything. My point was that you can't have an > > option that is meant to explore for bad practices and expose drivers > > that don't go through the proper abstraction, and at the same time > > complain that things gets broken. It's the whole point of it. > > > Can we get back to the original problem, please ? Sure. > Build errors such as failed 32-bit builds are a nuisance for those > running build tests. It seems to me that an automated infrastructure > to prevent such build errors from making it into the kernel should be > desirable. You seem to disagree, and at least it looked like you > complained about the existence of COMPILE_TEST, or that people are > doing COMPILE_TEST builds. What is your suggested alternative ? > Disabling build tests on drm doesn't seem to be it, and it seems you > don't like the idea of a basic generic CI either, but what is it ? You don't have to be aggressive about it though. Anyway. The original problem I pointed out was funding. You can't expect everyone to pay for builders running things they fundamentally don't care about. That's it. I'm all for CI, I'm all for automated tests and builds, I don't think COMPILE_TEST is a bad idea, I also think doing those kind of builds is worth it and useful. But the point of those exploratory kind of builds is precisely to look for breakages, so is something we should expect, not complain about. There's nothing to fix, or nothing to improve to me, except the general discourse. And singling out DRM because it regularly allegedly breaks things on xtensa or m68k and claiming we're not taking CI seriously because of it is completely ridiculous. If the all the subsystems were taking CI as seriously as DRM, we would be in a much better place. Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
