Re: [PATCH 1/3] kci-gitlab: Introducing GitLab-CI Pipeline for Kernel Testing

From: Guenter Roeck <groeck@google.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Nikolai Kondrashov <spbnick@gmail.com>,
	Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>,
	 Helen Koike <helen.koike@collabora.com>,
	linuxtv-ci@linuxtv.org,  dave.pigott@collabora.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,  dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,  gustavo.padovan@collabora.com,
	pawiecz@collabora.com,  tales.aparecida@gmail.com,
	workflows@vger.kernel.org,  kernelci@lists.linux.dev,
	skhan@linuxfoundation.org,  kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
	nfraprado@collabora.com, davidgow@google.com,  cocci@inria.fr,
	Julia.Lawall@inria.fr, laura.nao@collabora.com,
	 ricardo.canuelo@collabora.com, kernel@collabora.com,
	 gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] kci-gitlab: Introducing GitLab-CI Pipeline for Kernel Testing
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2024 14:10:51 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABXOdTeT2ip1uS2EG2w8pW7254Tnd=ZDNz-KC61-G-yqDTVgJA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wixVy3WYvjbt43ZSrCqPDsS76QJQSkXFbbPsAOs1MCSAQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 12:21 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 01:23, Nikolai Kondrashov <spbnick@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > However, I think a better approach would be *not* to add the .gitlab-ci.yaml
> > file in the root of the source tree, but instead change the very same repo
> > setting to point to a particular entry YAML, *inside* the repo (somewhere
> > under "ci" directory) instead.
>
> I really don't want some kind of top-level CI for the base kernel project.
>
> We already have the situation that the drm people have their own ci
> model. II'm ok with that, partly because then at least the maintainers
> of that subsystem can agree on the rules for that one subsystem.
>
> I'm not at all interested in having something that people will then
> either fight about, or - more likely - ignore, at the top level
> because there isn't some global agreement about what the rules are.
>
> For example, even just running checkpatch is often a stylistic thing,
> and not everybody agrees about all the checkpatch warnings.
>

While checkpatch is indeed of arguable value, I think it would help a
lot not having to bother about the persistent _build_ failures on
32-bit systems. You mentioned the fancy drm CI system above, but they
don't run tests and not even test builds on 32-bit targets, which has
repeatedly caused (and currently does cause) build failures in drm
code when trying to build, say, arm:allmodconfig in linux-next. Most
trivial build failures in linux-next (and, yes, sometimes mainline)
could be prevented with a simple generic CI.

Sure, argue against checkpatch as much as you like, but the code
should at least _build_, and it should not be necessary for random
people to report build failures to the submitters.

Guenter

> I would suggest the CI project be separate from the kernel.
>
> And having that slack channel that is restricted to particular
> companies is just another sign of this whole disease.
>
> If you want to make a google/microsoft project to do kernel CI, then
> more power to you, but don't expect it to be some kind of agreed-upon
> kernel project when it's a closed system.
>
>                Linus
>