From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 00:50:55 +0100 From: Will Deacon Subject: Re: Branch for kernelci Message-ID: <20191016235055.begiifweaxolgwih@willie-the-truck> References: <20191015202114.GA120152@google.com> <20191016095636.GA4881@sirena.co.uk> <20191016123833.GG49619@arrakis.emea.arm.com> <20191016125416.GA11371@sirena.co.uk> <20191016164621.xa2nc6li2luiujug@willie-the-truck> <456755903.4221278.1571246924706.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <456755903.4221278.1571246924706.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline List-ID: To: Veronika Kabatova Cc: kernelci@groups.io, Mark Brown , Catalin Marinas , tkjos@google.com On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:28:44PM -0400, Veronika Kabatova wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Will Deacon" > > To: "Mark Brown" > > Cc: "Catalin Marinas" , kernelci@groups.io, tkjos@google.com > > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 6:46:22 PM > > Subject: Re: Branch for kernelci > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:54:16PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:38:34PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:56:36AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > > > > > Are you sure they are interested in this? When asked previously they > > > > > indicated that they didn't see any extra value in covering their tree > > > > > specifically separately to -next. > > > > > > > Will can comment on the reasoning but I guess it came as a request from > > > > him since he also created the arm64/for-kernelci branch. This might as > > > > well be the same as for-next/core but tested in isolation rather than > > > > with the whole linux-next tree. > > > > > > Yeah, that was what you'd both rejected doing before which was why I was > > > surprised (plus the fact that this was coming via Todd rather than one > > > of you). > > > > I asked Todd about this yesterday because we're dealing with an ABI > > regression in 5.4 which wasn't picked up until -rc3, so figured that this > > was probably worth doing after all. Perhaps it wouldn't have helped for this > > specific case, but it turns out that one person's LTP isn't quite the same > > as another person's LTP! > > > > if you're mentioning the regression from this thread [0] you'd need to have > the tree added to CKI, not KernelCI. Not sure if we're ready to handle > mainline/next speed of development yet but we can discuss the specifics and > decide based on that. The issue/PR with details be submitted here [1]. Hopefully the two aren't mutually exclusive, so if you're able to add the branch to CKI as well then that would be great. Will