Hi, "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> writes:
> Hi Huichao, > > > > In general yes, it is developer responsibility to address any issues with > his/her patches. +1 > In that particular case, looking at the logs, it seems to be some > misconfiguration > > on test-machine not related anyhow to your changes. > > BTW, there are few similar failures with other patches at about the same date: > > https://lab.dpdk.org/results/dashboard/patchsets/21562/ > > https://lab.dpdk.org/results/dashboard/patchsets/21546/ > > Which again, makes me think that it is just a tesc-config related failure. > > What is the best way to deal with it? Agreed. I've CC'd UNH lab, but in this case I think these are the BRCM managed systems. > Probably the easiest and safest thing – to resubmit the patch to force > > another run of test harness. > > Aaron, is there any better way to deal with it? At the moment, no. We do have an effort for resubmits to be requested - but that hasn't been completed yet. > Thanks > > Konstantin > > > > > > From: Huichao Cai <chcch...@163.com> > Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 2:22 AM > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re:RE: [PATCH v5] ip_frag: add IPv4 options fragment and test data > > > > Hi Konstantin, > > > > This patch has a test case failure:ci/iol-broadcom-Functional. > > Failed Tests: > > - mtu_update > > - scatter > > The same goes for many other patches,Do I need to deal with it, how to deal > with it? > > > > Huichao,Cai
