Hi Jeff, Thanks for reviewing and sorry for the testsuite without any update in my patch to cause regression failures..
I will re-submit the patches with the updated testsuite. Tsung chun Patrick O'Neill <patr...@rivosinc.com> 於 2024年10月10日 週四 上午7:35寫道： > > > On 10/9/24 14:50, Jeff Law wrote: > > > > > > On 10/9/24 3:21 PM, Patrick O'Neill wrote: > >> > >> On 10/9/24 14:07, Jeff Law wrote: > >>> <snip> > >>> > >>> Also note that if you use the tag "[RISC-V]" in your subject line > >>> your patch will be automatically picked up by a pre-commit tester > >>> that can be subsequently examined to verify behavior. > >>> > >> This patch's subject line looks good to me. It would've been picked > >> up as-is since it mentions riscv/risc-v. > >> > >> The patch doesn't show up in patchworks so that's what stopped the > >> risc- v pre-commit from finding it. > >> > >> Sadly I don't have much insight into what stopped patchworks from > >> seeing it. :-/ > > I'd assumed it wasn't [RISC-V], but you know that aspect better than I > > :-) > > > That's a safe first guess :) > The flow for precommit gets new patches from the Patchworks API, so if > it isn't in patchworks then precommit won't see it. > We have patchworks to handle parsing emails/extracting patches for us :) > > From poking around the patchworks source code my new best guess is that > the Content-Type header of the attachment in the original email threw it > off: > > --00000000000079e1d00623f13532 > Content-Type: application/octet-stream; > name="0001-RISC-V-Enable-builtin-__riscv_mul-with-Zmmul-extensi.patch" > > Seems like patchworks ignores all attachments that aren't `*/x-patch`, > `*/x-diff`, `text/*`? > https://github.com/getpatchwork/patchwork/blob/4dfe6991a7bcdb11fd878a087aba314e9fdaa2db/patchwork/parser.py#L686 > https://github.com/getpatchwork/patchwork/blob/4dfe6991a7bcdb11fd878a087aba314e9fdaa2db/patchwork/parser.py#L639 > > Patrick
