From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <81a88dac-d19d-2388-03a7-d85dc1f8ea85@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 16:41:04 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "Nikolai Kondrashov" Subject: #KCIDB engagement report Reply-To: kernelci@groups.io, Nikolai.Kondrashov@redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-ID: To: kernelci@groups.io, automated-testing@lists.yoctoproject.org Hi everyone, Below is the monthly* report on KCIDB** engagement. It lists various CI systems and their status of engagement with KCIDB, as well as developer engagement. We have no news on CI system engagement, but we're working with our KernelCI colleague Mark Brown on figuring out suitable notifications for him. We've implemented sending notifications one hour after the last update for a revision arrives, thus approximating the traditional behavior of "send report when testing is done". Here's an example: https://groups.io/g/kernelci-results-staging/message/11899 However, this is still hardly useful, as there are so many failures. Thus we again arrive at the inescapable need for masking known failures somehow. To that end, I went over how various kernel CI systems do it, to try to find a solution which would accommodate everyone, and wrapped that into a FOSDEM talk: https://fosdem.org/2022/schedule/event/masking_known_issues_across_six_kernel_ci_systems/ I have a few ideas I'll be presenting there, as well as a few problems, of course, and would appreciate your feedback. I'd be glad to hear any corrections to my summaries of how CI systems operate, too, as I had to prepare those in a rush. CI Engagement Status KernelCI native Sending (a lot of) production build and test results. https://kcidb.kernelci.org/?var-origin=kernelci Red Hat CKI Sending production results. https://kcidb.kernelci.org/?var-origin=redhat Google Syzbot Sending a subset of production results (failures only). https://kcidb.kernelci.org/?var-origin=syzbot ARM Sending production results. Full commit hashes are currently not available, are spoofed, and don't match the ones reported by others. There's ongoing switch to using a KernelCI instance setup, which should fix this. https://kcidb.kernelci.org/?var-origin=arm Sony Fuego Internal design in progress. Gentoo GKernelCI Sending production results. Only builds (a few architectures), no configs, no logs, and no tests for now, but working on growing contributions. https://kcidb.kernelci.org/?var-origin=gkernelci Intel 0day Initial conversation concluded, general interest expressed, no contact since. Linaro Sending (a lot of) Tuxsuite build results to "production" KCIDB. https://kcidb.kernelci.org/?var-origin=tuxsuite TuxML Initial contact in response to a report. There's a plan to approach us and start work in the coming months. Yocto Project Initial contact in response to a report. Would like to start sending build and test results, particularly for older kernels. Would like to separate upstream commits from project patches first: https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14196 Huawei Compass CI Sent a message to Fengguang Wu, who was presenting it at LVC 2021. No response so far. Please respond with corrections or suggestions of other CI systems to contact. Thank you! Nick *More-or-less :) **KCIDB is an effort to unify Linux Kernel CI reporting, maintained by Linux Foundation's KernelCI project: https://foundation.kernelci.org/blog/2020/08/21/introducing-common-reporting/