Hi Gustavo,
On 11/20/23 14:40, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 09:14 -03, Nikolai Kondrashov
wrote:
On 11/15/23 22:38, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 07:43:49PM +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
Introduce a new tag, 'Tested-with:', documented in
On 11/21/23 12:36, David Gow wrote:
Thanks so much for doing this! I think everyone agrees that we need
_some_ way of documenting which tests to run, and I think this is our
best option.
Awesome :D
In any case, this patch does a lot, and I'll comment on them
one-by-one. (It may be worth split
On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 01:27:44PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> > (I don't need to see all of the tests that passes; it's the test
> > failures or the test flakes that are significant.)
>
> The listing of tests does get a bit more complex when you mix in running
> on different platforms.
Yeah, that
146.9848-2-Nikolai.Kondrashov%40redhat.com
patch subject: [PATCH 1/3] MAINTAINERS: Introduce V: field for required tests
reproduce:
(https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20231122/202311220843.vh7wyxdf-...@intel.com/reproduce)
If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new
On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 06:36:10PM +0800, David Gow wrote:
> The other question is how to handle outdated results when a new patch
> revision is sent out. Personally, I think this is something we can
> solve similarly to 'Reviewed-by', depending on the extent of the
> changes and cost of the tests
Hi Theodore,
On 11/20/23 22:51, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 02:30:49PM +0100, Ricardo Cañuelo wrote:
This is not trivial because tests vary a lot and we'd first need to
define which artifacts to link to, and because whatever is linked (test
commands, output log, results summar
Hi Ricardo,
On 11/20/23 15:30, Ricardo Cañuelo wrote:
On mié, nov 15 2023 at 19:43:49, Nikolai Kondrashov
wrote:
Introduce a new tag, 'Tested-with:', documented in the
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst file. The tag is expected
to reference the documented test suites, similarly t
On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 01:04:50AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 10:27:33PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> > This is the sort of thing that kcidb (which Nikolai works on) is good at
> > ingesting, I actually do push all my CI's test results into there
> > already:
> >https
On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 at 14:05, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 10:27:33PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> > This is the sort of thing that kcidb (which Nikolai works on) is good at
> > ingesting, I actually do push all my CI's test results into there
> > already:
> >
> >https://gith
Thanks so much for doing this! I think everyone agrees that we need
_some_ way of documenting which tests to run, and I think this is our
best option.
In any case, this patch does a lot, and I'll comment on them
one-by-one. (It may be worth splitting this patch up into a few
separate bits, if only
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 10:27:33PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> This is the sort of thing that kcidb (which Nikolai works on) is good at
> ingesting, I actually do push all my CI's test results into there
> already:
>
>https://github.com/kernelci/kcidb/
>
> (the dashboard is down currently.) A
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 03:51:31PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> What we have at work is a way to upload the test results summary
> (e.g., just KTAP result lines, or the xfstests junit XML) along with
> test run metadata (e.g., what was the kernel commit on which the test
> was run, and the test h
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 02:30:49PM +0100, Ricardo Cañuelo wrote:
>
> This is not trivial because tests vary a lot and we'd first need to
> define which artifacts to link to, and because whatever is linked (test
> commands, output log, results summary) would need to be stored
> forever. But since w
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 12:40:39PM +, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> I also wonder how to make for subsystems that will have different test
> suites (eg something in kselftests and an external test suite). Would
> an alternative be pointing to a Documentation page with detailed info?
Why not just a
Hi Nikolai,
On mié, nov 15 2023 at 19:43:49, Nikolai Kondrashov
wrote:
> Introduce a new tag, 'Tested-with:', documented in the
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst file. The tag is expected
> to reference the documented test suites, similarly to the 'V:' field,
> and to certify that t
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 09:14 -03, Nikolai Kondrashov
wrote:
> On 11/15/23 22:38, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 07:43:49PM +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
> >> Introduce a new tag, 'Tested-with:', documented in the
> >> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.r
Hi Bagas,
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 2:20 PM Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 07:43:49PM +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
> > Make scripts/checkpatch.pl ensure any added V: fields reference
> > documented test suites only, and output a warning if a change to a
> > subsystem doesn't cer
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 08:20:18PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 07:43:49PM +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
> > Make scripts/checkpatch.pl ensure any added V: fields reference
> > documented test suites only, and output a warning if a change to a
> > subsystem doesn't certi
On 11/16/23 15:26, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 02:14:24PM +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
Yes, that would be better indeed. However, checkpatch.pl doesn't process
cover letters, and so we would have no automated way to advertise and nudge
people towards testing.
Back when I use
On 11/16/23 20:41, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
> On 11/16/23 15:20, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 07:43:49PM +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
>>> Make scripts/checkpatch.pl ensure any added V: fields reference
>>> documented test suites only, and output a warning if a change to a
>>
On 11/16/23 15:20, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 07:43:49PM +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
Make scripts/checkpatch.pl ensure any added V: fields reference
documented test suites only, and output a warning if a change to a
subsystem doesn't certify the required test suites were e
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 02:14:24PM +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
> Yes, that would be better indeed. However, checkpatch.pl doesn't process
> cover letters, and so we would have no automated way to advertise and nudge
> people towards testing.
Back when I used to run checkpatch it seemed to co
On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 07:43:49PM +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
> Make scripts/checkpatch.pl ensure any added V: fields reference
> documented test suites only, and output a warning if a change to a
> subsystem doesn't certify the required test suites were executed,
> if any.
>
> If the test s
On 11/15/23 22:38, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 07:43:49PM +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
Introduce a new tag, 'Tested-with:', documented in the
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst file. The tag is expected
to reference the documented test suites, similarly to t
On 11/15/23 22:14, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 07:43:49PM +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
Introduce a new tag, 'Tested-with:', documented in the
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst file. The tag is expected
to reference the documented test suites, similarly to the 'V:' f
On 11/15/23 20:31, Joe Perches wrote:
On Wed, 2023-11-15 at 19:43 +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
Introduce a new 'V:' ("Verify") field to MAINTAINERS. The field accepts
a name of a test suite which is required to be executed for each
contribution to the subsystem.
Perhaps this is simply too
On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 07:43:49PM +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
> Introduce a new tag, 'Tested-with:', documented in the
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst file. The tag is expected
> to reference the documented test suites, similarly to the 'V:' field,
> and to certify that the sub
On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 07:43:49PM +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
> Introduce a new tag, 'Tested-with:', documented in the
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst file. The tag is expected
> to reference the documented test suites, similarly to the 'V:' field,
> and to certify that the su
On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 10:31:21AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-11-15 at 19:43 +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
> > Introduce a new 'V:' ("Verify") field to MAINTAINERS. The field accepts
> > a name of a test suite which is required to be executed for each
> > contribution to the subsys
On Wed, 2023-11-15 at 19:43 +0200, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
> Introduce a new 'V:' ("Verify") field to MAINTAINERS. The field accepts
> a name of a test suite which is required to be executed for each
> contribution to the subsystem.
Perhaps this is simply too much overhead
process requirements f
Introduce a new 'V:' ("Verify") field to MAINTAINERS. The field accepts
a name of a test suite which is required to be executed for each
contribution to the subsystem.
Each referenced test suite is expected to be documented in the new
Documentation/process/tests.rst file, which must have enough st
31 matches
Mail list logo
