+stable on CC, to allow it be considered for possible backport. It's a change to the unit test app, so not affecting any ABI or any end-user app.
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 11:02:07AM -0400, Patrick Robb wrote: > On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 4:03 PM Patrick Robb <[1]pr...@iol.unh.edu> > wrote: > > Hello, > Yes, backporting would be ideal from a CI perspective because without > it we can't run arm64 testing on LTS tests. But I know there are other > considerations which also have to be weighed. > David also has a patch[1] which should resolve the underlying issue > which introduces the failures on the unit test we want to skip. If that > patch is accepted, and backported, fixing our original problem with > unit testing on our arm testbeds, that's another solution, at least for > this specific unit test issue. > It would still be nice to have this feature in case we need it > otherwise. > [1] [2]https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20230821085806.30626 > 13-4-david.march...@redhat.com/ > > Hi. just to close the loops on this, yes David's aforementioned patch > did resolve the unit test failure which was preventing us from running > fast-tests on our arm64 test beds. But, it is not (yet, at least) > backported for LTS releases. > Even if it were, having Bruce's patch here backported would mean the CI > testing approach could be common across releases in situations where > testcases have to be skipped. > Anyways, whether it's possible or "worth it" is ultimately down to the > community's bandwidth, but I didn't want to let the conversation lapse > without an update, and raising what the benefits would be. > In any case, thanks again Bruce for the rework, it's a great addition. > > References > > 1. mailto:pr...@iol.unh.edu > 2. > https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20230821085806.3062613-4-david.march...@redhat.com/
