09/01/2018 02:32, Neil Horman: > On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 11:00:52AM -0500, Neil Horman wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 03:08:52PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 04/01/2018 13:56, Neil Horman: > > > > On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 12:15:17PM -0500, Neil Horman wrote: > > > > > Thomas- > > > > > I just noticed that the ci tests are failing on the intel > > > > > compiler, which > > > > > makes very little sense to me, as the error is a permission error on > > > > > a bash > > > > > script that added in this series, which works during the gcc > > > > > compilation. Can > > > > > you take a look at that please? > > > > > > > > > > thanks > > > > > Neil > > > > > > > > > Ping again Thomas, I've still heard nothing from you or the CI group > > > > about > > > > getting more visibility into the odd permission problem in the CI runs > > > > this > > > > seems to be encountering. I'd love to fix it, but the information in > > > > the report > > > > is insufficient to have any idea whats going on and the problem does > > > > not occur > > > > on local builds. Please advise. > > > > > > Unfortunately, I have no clues about this setup. > > > The report is sent by sys_...@intel.com. > > > Adding Qian as Cc. > > > > > > The error is "buildtools/experimentalsyms.sh: Permission denied" > > > And the file mode is 100755. > > > > > > Anyone from Intel to check what happens please? > > > > > Thank you Thomas. I would really like to get this pushed in, as others have > > acked it, but the lack of visibility into the CI errors is quite frustrating > > Neil > > > > > So I'm not sure where to go with this. I've emailed the ci group on their > list, > I've asked them directly on this list, and asked you, Thomas for assistance in > getting hold of the ci maintainers, and there has been no response in over a > week now. This patch has been acked by a few people, and the builds work on > clang and gcc locally just fine. I'm inclined to ask you to take these > patches > despite the ci errors. If the CI maintainers can't respond to needs for > visibility into the system, I don't think its reasonable to block patches > based > on CI results. > > Thoughts? > Neil
Yes, you're right, we can bypass this CI test.
