On 26.02.2024 10:08, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 at 09:05, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >> On 23.02.2024 15:24, ci_not...@linaro.org wrote: >>> Dear contributor, our automatic CI has detected problems related to your >>> patch(es). Please find some details below. If you have any questions, >>> please follow up on linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org mailing list, >>> Libera's #linaro-tcwg channel, or ping your favourite Linaro toolchain >>> developer on the usual project channel. >>> >>> We appreciate that it might be difficult to find the necessary logs or >>> reproduce the issue locally. If you can't get what you need from our CI >>> within minutes, let us know and we will be happy to help. >> >> So: The specific failure observed makes me guess that in the course of >> building generated files (opcodes/aarch64-*-2.c) aren't re-generated. If >> this is indeed the case, sending out such unsolicited emails (I've had a >> 2nd one in the meantime, for whatever reason) is a waste of everybody's >> time, even more so when not clearly indicating that fact, such that >> - quoting above - it is possible "within minutes" to understand what's >> going on / wrong. >> >> IOW - unless clarified I'm going to assume that the report here is a >> false negative. >> > > Sorry if these messages weren't helpful. > > You are right, the reason for the failures is that these aarch64 files > are not regenerated, because our CI does not currently enable > maintainer-mode. > > We've known that for some time already, and I started working on that > recently. Unfortunately, it turns out it's not as simple as adding > --enable-maintainer-mode in our build script. I've been chasing random > build errors with maintainer-mode enable, at this stage I suspect a > race condition in binutils' top-level Makefile leading to regenerating > some files several times concurrently, leading to corrupt output. > Hopefully I'll manage to track this down and fix it. Otherwise we'd > send random regression notifications, which would be even more > confusing.
Right, and I try to stay away from maintainer mode, too, I have to confess. Instead I carry a local patch removing just a few of the @MAINT@ that are getting in the way. In any event, may I ask that it be clarified in the emails that failure may be due to the lack of re-generation of files, until such time that the issue is under control? > Note that we want to enable maintainer-mode in "precommit" CI only, > not in the postcommit one, were we want to build & check patches as > they were committed to the repo, not "as they should have been". Of course. > Regarding the 2 messages you received, you can notice that they point > to 2 different patchwork threads: > https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/binutils/list/?series=31217 > https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/binutils/list/?series=31252 > > so ISTM it's normal that the CI started 2 independent validations. Hmm, no. The 2nd was about https://patchwork.sourceware.org/patch/86275 which is https://patchwork.sourceware.org/patch/86276 short of one patch. So still odd. The first of the two links you provided is actually an entirely different series by a different author. Jan _______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list -- linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-toolchain-le...@lists.linaro.org
