On 3/2/24 14:10, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 12:21 PM Linus Torvalds
> <torva...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 01:23, Nikolai Kondrashov <spbn...@gmail.com> 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
