CI build for quanta/gbs

CI build for quanta/gbs

[George Hung (洪忠敬)]

Hi Andrew Geissler,

We have ported many OpenBMC features to quanta/gbs machine (Nuvoton BMC platform) and hope it could be added to CI build, could you help add quanta/gbs machine to CI build verification ? (I'm not familiar with this, if there's anything we need to do first, please let us know)


Thanks a lot.

Best Regards 
George Hung

Re: CI build for quanta/gbs

[Andrew Geissler]

> On May 5, 2021, at 1:26 AM, George Hung (洪忠敬) <George.Hung@quantatw.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Andrew Geissler,
> 
> We have ported many OpenBMC features to quanta/gbs machine (Nuvoton BMC platform) and hope it could be added to CI build, could you help add quanta/gbs machine to CI build verification ? (I'm not familiar with this, if there's anything we need to do first, please let us know)

Hey George,

Getting a new system into CI doesn’t have the most defined process but
I think in general it has to fall under one of these due to our constraints
in compute power for CI:

1) Propose an existing system in CI to replace (and the benefits of that)
2) Donate a jenkins compute node to openbmc CI
3) Convince the community that your system provides additional meta-*
    layer coverage (or some other critical benefit) that would be worth
    the additional hit to the existing CI infrastructure.

We currently have a “gsj” system in CI. Would it make sense to replace
it with this new “gbs” machine?


> 
> 
> Thanks a lot.
> 
> Best Regards 
> George Hung
> 

Re: CI build for quanta/gbs

[Patrick Venture]

On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 6:25 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 5, 2021, at 1:26 AM, George Hung (洪忠敬) <George.Hung@quantatw.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Andrew Geissler,
> >
> > We have ported many OpenBMC features to quanta/gbs machine (Nuvoton BMC platform) and hope it could be added to CI build, could you help add quanta/gbs machine to CI build verification ? (I'm not familiar with this, if there's anything we need to do first, please let us know)
>
> Hey George,
>
> Getting a new system into CI doesn’t have the most defined process but
> I think in general it has to fall under one of these due to our constraints
> in compute power for CI:
>
> 1) Propose an existing system in CI to replace (and the benefits of that)
> 2) Donate a jenkins compute node to openbmc CI
> 3) Convince the community that your system provides additional meta-*
>     layer coverage (or some other critical benefit) that would be worth
>     the additional hit to the existing CI infrastructure.
>
> We currently have a “gsj” system in CI. Would it make sense to replace
> it with this new “gbs” machine?

Jumping on this thread to say that I'm hoping to have quanta-gbs
support in upstream qemu shortly --- so we could also enable this as a
Qemu CI machine.

>
>
> >
> >
> > Thanks a lot.
> >
> > Best Regards
> > George Hung
> >
>

Re: CI build for quanta/gbs

[Brandon Kim]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1957 bytes --]

Hi Andrew,

`gbs` machine will provide meta-google coverage, so it would be great if
`gbs` could be added in addition to `gsj` instead of as a replacement.

Is there a shortage of OpenBMC CI nodes by any chance? Google has been
providing 2 of the OpenBMC CI nodes, so it would be great if adding `gbs`
could count towards one of those CI nodes.

Thank you,
Brandon

On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 10:54 AM Patrick Venture <venture@google.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 6:25 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 5, 2021, at 1:26 AM, George Hung (洪忠敬) <
> George.Hung@quantatw.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Andrew Geissler,
> > >
> > > We have ported many OpenBMC features to quanta/gbs machine (Nuvoton
> BMC platform) and hope it could be added to CI build, could you help add
> quanta/gbs machine to CI build verification ? (I'm not familiar with this,
> if there's anything we need to do first, please let us know)
> >
> > Hey George,
> >
> > Getting a new system into CI doesn’t have the most defined process but
> > I think in general it has to fall under one of these due to our
> constraints
> > in compute power for CI:
> >
> > 1) Propose an existing system in CI to replace (and the benefits of that)
> > 2) Donate a jenkins compute node to openbmc CI
> > 3) Convince the community that your system provides additional meta-*
> >     layer coverage (or some other critical benefit) that would be worth
> >     the additional hit to the existing CI infrastructure.
> >
> > We currently have a “gsj” system in CI. Would it make sense to replace
> > it with this new “gbs” machine?
>
> Jumping on this thread to say that I'm hoping to have quanta-gbs
> support in upstream qemu shortly --- so we could also enable this as a
> Qemu CI machine.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot.
> > >
> > > Best Regards
> > > George Hung
> > >
> >
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2647 bytes --]

Re: CI build for quanta/gbs

[Andrew Geissler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2480 bytes --]



> On May 5, 2021, at 2:37 PM, Brandon Kim <brandonkim@google.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> `gbs` machine will provide meta-google coverage, so it would be great if `gbs` could be added in addition to `gsj` instead of as a replacement.
> 
> Is there a shortage of OpenBMC CI nodes by any chance? Google has been providing 2 of the OpenBMC CI nodes, so it would be great if adding `gbs` could count towards one of those CI nodes.

Yep, google donates two servers so sounds good. I added it to our daily build of master and it looks like it hit a build issue. We can coordinate in discord if you like but once we get this figured out, I’ll add it to the main openbmc/openbmc CI job.

https://jenkins.openbmc.org/job/latest-master/231/label=docker-builder,target=gbs/console

> 
> Thank you,
> Brandon
> 
> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 10:54 AM Patrick Venture <venture@google.com <mailto:venture@google.com>> wrote:
> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 6:25 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com <mailto:geissonator@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 5, 2021, at 1:26 AM, George Hung (洪忠敬) <George.Hung@quantatw.com <mailto:George.Hung@quantatw.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Andrew Geissler,
> > >
> > > We have ported many OpenBMC features to quanta/gbs machine (Nuvoton BMC platform) and hope it could be added to CI build, could you help add quanta/gbs machine to CI build verification ? (I'm not familiar with this, if there's anything we need to do first, please let us know)
> >
> > Hey George,
> >
> > Getting a new system into CI doesn’t have the most defined process but
> > I think in general it has to fall under one of these due to our constraints
> > in compute power for CI:
> >
> > 1) Propose an existing system in CI to replace (and the benefits of that)
> > 2) Donate a jenkins compute node to openbmc CI
> > 3) Convince the community that your system provides additional meta-*
> >     layer coverage (or some other critical benefit) that would be worth
> >     the additional hit to the existing CI infrastructure.
> >
> > We currently have a “gsj” system in CI. Would it make sense to replace
> > it with this new “gbs” machine?
> 
> Jumping on this thread to say that I'm hoping to have quanta-gbs
> support in upstream qemu shortly --- so we could also enable this as a
> Qemu CI machine.
> 
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot.
> > >
> > > Best Regards
> > > George Hung
> > >
> >


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4292 bytes --]

Re: CI build for quanta/gbs

[Brandon Kim]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2942 bytes --]

Hi Andrew,

It looks like it's due to my patch to phosphor-hwmon (which, the repo is
going through some overhaul and is causing conflicts with). The patch in
question is in the process of getting upstreamed and the repo is settling
down, so I'll ping you on Discord once it looks ready to be tried again
(hopefully by end of the week).

Thanks,
Brandon

On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 6:38 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On May 5, 2021, at 2:37 PM, Brandon Kim <brandonkim@google.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> `gbs` machine will provide meta-google coverage, so it would be great if
> `gbs` could be added in addition to `gsj` instead of as a replacement.
>
> Is there a shortage of OpenBMC CI nodes by any chance? Google has been
> providing 2 of the OpenBMC CI nodes, so it would be great if adding `gbs`
> could count towards one of those CI nodes.
>
>
> Yep, google donates two servers so sounds good. I added it to our daily
> build of master and it looks like it hit a build issue. We can coordinate
> in discord if you like but once we get this figured out, I’ll add it to the
> main openbmc/openbmc CI job.
>
>
> https://jenkins.openbmc.org/job/latest-master/231/label=docker-builder,target=gbs/console
>
>
> Thank you,
> Brandon
>
> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 10:54 AM Patrick Venture <venture@google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 6:25 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > On May 5, 2021, at 1:26 AM, George Hung (洪忠敬) <
>> George.Hung@quantatw.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hi Andrew Geissler,
>> > >
>> > > We have ported many OpenBMC features to quanta/gbs machine (Nuvoton
>> BMC platform) and hope it could be added to CI build, could you help add
>> quanta/gbs machine to CI build verification ? (I'm not familiar with this,
>> if there's anything we need to do first, please let us know)
>> >
>> > Hey George,
>> >
>> > Getting a new system into CI doesn’t have the most defined process but
>> > I think in general it has to fall under one of these due to our
>> constraints
>> > in compute power for CI:
>> >
>> > 1) Propose an existing system in CI to replace (and the benefits of
>> that)
>> > 2) Donate a jenkins compute node to openbmc CI
>> > 3) Convince the community that your system provides additional meta-*
>> >     layer coverage (or some other critical benefit) that would be worth
>> >     the additional hit to the existing CI infrastructure.
>> >
>> > We currently have a “gsj” system in CI. Would it make sense to replace
>> > it with this new “gbs” machine?
>>
>> Jumping on this thread to say that I'm hoping to have quanta-gbs
>> support in upstream qemu shortly --- so we could also enable this as a
>> Qemu CI machine.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Thanks a lot.
>> > >
>> > > Best Regards
>> > > George Hung
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4297 bytes --]

RE: CI build for quanta/gbs

[George Hung (洪忠敬)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3514 bytes --]

Hi Andrew,

We already fix the patch error for phosphor-hwmon, could you help proceed to join the quanta/gbs to CI build ?

Thanks a lot.

Best Regards
George Hung


Hi Andrew,

It looks like it's due to my patch to phosphor-hwmon (which, the repo is going through some overhaul and is causing conflicts with). The patch in question is in the process of getting upstreamed and the repo is settling down, so I'll ping you on Discord once it looks ready to be tried again (hopefully by end of the week).

Thanks,
Brandon

On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 6:38 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com<mailto:geissonator@gmail.com>> wrote:



On May 5, 2021, at 2:37 PM, Brandon Kim <brandonkim@google.com<mailto:brandonkim@google.com>> wrote:

Hi Andrew,

`gbs` machine will provide meta-google coverage, so it would be great if `gbs` could be added in addition to `gsj` instead of as a replacement.

Is there a shortage of OpenBMC CI nodes by any chance? Google has been providing 2 of the OpenBMC CI nodes, so it would be great if adding `gbs` could count towards one of those CI nodes.

Yep, google donates two servers so sounds good. I added it to our daily build of master and it looks like it hit a build issue. We can coordinate in discord if you like but once we get this figured out, I’ll add it to the main openbmc/openbmc CI job.

https://jenkins.openbmc.org/job/latest-master/231/label=docker-builder,target=gbs/console<https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjenkins.openbmc.org%2Fjob%2Flatest-master%2F231%2Flabel%3Ddocker-builder%2Ctarget%3Dgbs%2Fconsole&data=04%7C01%7CGeorge.Hung%40quantatw.com%7C5daa46384b4e4cebf7f908d910a4efb6%7C179b032707fc4973ac738de7313561b2%7C1%7C0%7C637559122843370643%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=uFv0h2aHwSVlOU6o330pT9hnRO9i5fYc21nUH1Y3ly4%3D&reserved=0>



Thank you,
Brandon

On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 10:54 AM Patrick Venture <venture@google.com<mailto:venture@google.com>> wrote:
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 6:25 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com<mailto:geissonator@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 5, 2021, at 1:26 AM, George Hung (洪忠敬) <George.Hung@quantatw.com<mailto:George.Hung@quantatw.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Andrew Geissler,
> >
> > We have ported many OpenBMC features to quanta/gbs machine (Nuvoton BMC platform) and hope it could be added to CI build, could you help add quanta/gbs machine to CI build verification ? (I'm not familiar with this, if there's anything we need to do first, please let us know)
>
> Hey George,
>
> Getting a new system into CI doesn’t have the most defined process but
> I think in general it has to fall under one of these due to our constraints
> in compute power for CI:
>
> 1) Propose an existing system in CI to replace (and the benefits of that)
> 2) Donate a jenkins compute node to openbmc CI
> 3) Convince the community that your system provides additional meta-*
>     layer coverage (or some other critical benefit) that would be worth
>     the additional hit to the existing CI infrastructure.
>
> We currently have a “gsj” system in CI. Would it make sense to replace
> it with this new “gbs” machine?

Jumping on this thread to say that I'm hoping to have quanta-gbs
support in upstream qemu shortly --- so we could also enable this as a
Qemu CI machine.

>
>
> >
> >
> > Thanks a lot.
> >
> > Best Regards
> > George Hung
> >
>


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 10068 bytes --]

Re: CI build for quanta/gbs

[Andrew Geissler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4154 bytes --]



> On May 7, 2021, at 2:10 AM, George Hung (洪忠敬) <George.Hung@quantatw.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Andrew,
>  
> We already fix the patch error for phosphor-hwmon, could you help proceed to join the quanta/gbs to CI build ?

Hey George, I’ve added it to our daily build, it’s still not passing for gbs though. Please take a look at https://jenkins.openbmc.org/job/latest-master/233/label=docker-builder,target=gbs/ <https://jenkins.openbmc.org/job/latest-master/233/label=docker-builder,target=gbs/> 

Once I see that daily job pass I’ll add it to our official CI job.

>  
> Thanks a lot.
>  
> Best Regards
> George Hung
> 
>  
> Hi Andrew,
>  
> It looks like it's due to my patch to phosphor-hwmon (which, the repo is going through some overhaul and is causing conflicts with). The patch in question is in the process of getting upstreamed and the repo is settling down, so I'll ping you on Discord once it looks ready to be tried again (hopefully by end of the week).
>  
> Thanks,
> Brandon
>  
> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 6:38 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com <mailto:geissonator@gmail.com>> wrote:
>  
> 
> 
> On May 5, 2021, at 2:37 PM, Brandon Kim <brandonkim@google.com <mailto:brandonkim@google.com>> wrote:
>  
> Hi Andrew,
>  
> `gbs` machine will provide meta-google coverage, so it would be great if `gbs` could be added in addition to `gsj` instead of as a replacement.
>  
> Is there a shortage of OpenBMC CI nodes by any chance? Google has been providing 2 of the OpenBMC CI nodes, so it would be great if adding `gbs` could count towards one of those CI nodes.
>  
> Yep, google donates two servers so sounds good. I added it to our daily build of master and it looks like it hit a build issue. We can coordinate in discord if you like but once we get this figured out, I’ll add it to the main openbmc/openbmc CI job.
>  
> https://jenkins.openbmc.org/job/latest-master/231/label=docker-builder,target=gbs/console <https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjenkins.openbmc.org%2Fjob%2Flatest-master%2F231%2Flabel%3Ddocker-builder%2Ctarget%3Dgbs%2Fconsole&data=04%7C01%7CGeorge.Hung%40quantatw.com%7C5daa46384b4e4cebf7f908d910a4efb6%7C179b032707fc4973ac738de7313561b2%7C1%7C0%7C637559122843370643%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=uFv0h2aHwSVlOU6o330pT9hnRO9i5fYc21nUH1Y3ly4%3D&reserved=0>
> 
> 
>  
> Thank you,
> Brandon
>  
> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 10:54 AM Patrick Venture <venture@google.com <mailto:venture@google.com>> wrote:
> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 6:25 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com <mailto:geissonator@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 5, 2021, at 1:26 AM, George Hung (洪忠敬) <George.Hung@quantatw.com <mailto:George.Hung@quantatw.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Andrew Geissler,
> > >
> > > We have ported many OpenBMC features to quanta/gbs machine (Nuvoton BMC platform) and hope it could be added to CI build, could you help add quanta/gbs machine to CI build verification ? (I'm not familiar with this, if there's anything we need to do first, please let us know)
> >
> > Hey George,
> >
> > Getting a new system into CI doesn’t have the most defined process but
> > I think in general it has to fall under one of these due to our constraints
> > in compute power for CI:
> >
> > 1) Propose an existing system in CI to replace (and the benefits of that)
> > 2) Donate a jenkins compute node to openbmc CI
> > 3) Convince the community that your system provides additional meta-*
> >     layer coverage (or some other critical benefit) that would be worth
> >     the additional hit to the existing CI infrastructure.
> >
> > We currently have a “gsj” system in CI. Would it make sense to replace
> > it with this new “gbs” machine?
> 
> Jumping on this thread to say that I'm hoping to have quanta-gbs
> support in upstream qemu shortly --- so we could also enable this as a
> Qemu CI machine.
> 
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot.
> > >
> > > Best Regards
> > > George Hung
> > >
> >


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 14891 bytes --]

Re: CI build for quanta/gbs

[Brandon Kim]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4281 bytes --]

Hi Andrew,

Do you mind kicking off the docker build again for gbs? It looks like sslh
bump may have  been needed from meta-google
https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/c/openbmc/openbmc/+/43015

Thanks,
Brandon

On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 11:26 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On May 7, 2021, at 2:10 AM, George Hung (洪忠敬) <George.Hung@quantatw.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> We already fix the patch error for phosphor-hwmon, could you help proceed
> to join the quanta/gbs to CI build ?
>
>
> Hey George, I’ve added it to our daily build, it’s still not passing for
> gbs though. Please take a look at
> https://jenkins.openbmc.org/job/latest-master/233/label=docker-builder,target=gbs/
>
>
> Once I see that daily job pass I’ll add it to our official CI job.
>
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
> Best Regards
> George Hung
>
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> It looks like it's due to my patch to phosphor-hwmon (which, the repo is
> going through some overhaul and is causing conflicts with). The patch in
> question is in the process of getting upstreamed and the repo is settling
> down, so I'll ping you on Discord once it looks ready to be tried again
> (hopefully by end of the week).
>
> Thanks,
> Brandon
>
> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 6:38 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On May 5, 2021, at 2:37 PM, Brandon Kim <brandonkim@google.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> `gbs` machine will provide meta-google coverage, so it would be great if
> `gbs` could be added in addition to `gsj` instead of as a replacement.
>
> Is there a shortage of OpenBMC CI nodes by any chance? Google has been
> providing 2 of the OpenBMC CI nodes, so it would be great if adding `gbs`
> could count towards one of those CI nodes.
>
>
> Yep, google donates two servers so sounds good. I added it to our daily
> build of master and it looks like it hit a build issue. We can coordinate
> in discord if you like but once we get this figured out, I’ll add it to the
> main openbmc/openbmc CI job.
>
>
> https://jenkins.openbmc.org/job/latest-master/231/label=docker-builder,target=gbs/console
> <https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjenkins.openbmc.org%2Fjob%2Flatest-master%2F231%2Flabel%3Ddocker-builder%2Ctarget%3Dgbs%2Fconsole&data=04%7C01%7CGeorge.Hung%40quantatw.com%7C5daa46384b4e4cebf7f908d910a4efb6%7C179b032707fc4973ac738de7313561b2%7C1%7C0%7C637559122843370643%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=uFv0h2aHwSVlOU6o330pT9hnRO9i5fYc21nUH1Y3ly4%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> Thank you,
> Brandon
>
> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 10:54 AM Patrick Venture <venture@google.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 6:25 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 5, 2021, at 1:26 AM, George Hung (洪忠敬) <
> George.Hung@quantatw.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Andrew Geissler,
> > >
> > > We have ported many OpenBMC features to quanta/gbs machine (Nuvoton
> BMC platform) and hope it could be added to CI build, could you help add
> quanta/gbs machine to CI build verification ? (I'm not familiar with this,
> if there's anything we need to do first, please let us know)
> >
> > Hey George,
> >
> > Getting a new system into CI doesn’t have the most defined process but
> > I think in general it has to fall under one of these due to our
> constraints
> > in compute power for CI:
> >
> > 1) Propose an existing system in CI to replace (and the benefits of that)
> > 2) Donate a jenkins compute node to openbmc CI
> > 3) Convince the community that your system provides additional meta-*
> >     layer coverage (or some other critical benefit) that would be worth
> >     the additional hit to the existing CI infrastructure.
> >
> > We currently have a “gsj” system in CI. Would it make sense to replace
> > it with this new “gbs” machine?
>
> Jumping on this thread to say that I'm hoping to have quanta-gbs
> support in upstream qemu shortly --- so we could also enable this as a
> Qemu CI machine.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot.
> > >
> > > Best Regards
> > > George Hung
> > >
> >
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 12961 bytes --]

Re: CI build for quanta/gbs

[Andrew Geissler]

> On May 7, 2021, at 7:19 PM, Brandon Kim <brandonkim@google.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> Do you mind kicking off the docker build again for gbs? It looks like sslh bump may have  been needed from meta-google https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/c/openbmc/openbmc/+/43015

The job runs daily (when new code is available), looks like we’re on to something new now?

https://jenkins.openbmc.org/job/latest-master/label=docker-builder,target=gbs/234/console

3 out of 5 hunks FAILED -- rejects in file sensor.hpp
Patch 0001-sensor-Implement-sensor-ASYNC_READ_TIMEOUT.patch does not apply (enforce with -f)

stderr: 
ERROR: Logfile of failure stored in: /data0/jenkins/workspace/latest-master/label/docker-builder/target/gbs/build/work/armv7a-openbmc-linux-gnueabi/phosphor-hwmon/1.0+gitAUTOINC+6d50c3e9e1-r1/temp/log.do_patch.19118


> 
> Thanks,
> Brandon
> 
> On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 11:26 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On May 7, 2021, at 2:10 AM, George Hung (洪忠敬) <George.Hung@quantatw.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Andrew,
>>  
>> We already fix the patch error for phosphor-hwmon, could you help proceed to join the quanta/gbs to CI build ?
> 
> Hey George, I’ve added it to our daily build, it’s still not passing for gbs though. Please take a look at https://jenkins.openbmc.org/job/latest-master/233/label=docker-builder,target=gbs/ 
> 
> Once I see that daily job pass I’ll add it to our official CI job.
> 
>>  
>> Thanks a lot.
>>  
>> Best Regards
>> George Hung
>> 
>>  
>> Hi Andrew,
>>  
>> It looks like it's due to my patch to phosphor-hwmon (which, the repo is going through some overhaul and is causing conflicts with). The patch in question is in the process of getting upstreamed and the repo is settling down, so I'll ping you on Discord once it looks ready to be tried again (hopefully by end of the week).
>>  
>> Thanks,
>> Brandon
>>  
>> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 6:38 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> On May 5, 2021, at 2:37 PM, Brandon Kim <brandonkim@google.com> wrote:
>>  
>> Hi Andrew,
>>  
>> `gbs` machine will provide meta-google coverage, so it would be great if `gbs` could be added in addition to `gsj` instead of as a replacement.
>>  
>> Is there a shortage of OpenBMC CI nodes by any chance? Google has been providing 2 of the OpenBMC CI nodes, so it would be great if adding `gbs` could count towards one of those CI nodes.
>>  
>> Yep, google donates two servers so sounds good. I added it to our daily build of master and it looks like it hit a build issue. We can coordinate in discord if you like but once we get this figured out, I’ll add it to the main openbmc/openbmc CI job.
>>  
>> https://jenkins.openbmc.org/job/latest-master/231/label=docker-builder,target=gbs/console
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> Thank you,
>> Brandon
>>  
>> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 10:54 AM Patrick Venture <venture@google.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 6:25 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > On May 5, 2021, at 1:26 AM, George Hung (洪忠敬) <George.Hung@quantatw.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hi Andrew Geissler,
>> > >
>> > > We have ported many OpenBMC features to quanta/gbs machine (Nuvoton BMC platform) and hope it could be added to CI build, could you help add quanta/gbs machine to CI build verification ? (I'm not familiar with this, if there's anything we need to do first, please let us know)
>> >
>> > Hey George,
>> >
>> > Getting a new system into CI doesn’t have the most defined process but
>> > I think in general it has to fall under one of these due to our constraints
>> > in compute power for CI:
>> >
>> > 1) Propose an existing system in CI to replace (and the benefits of that)
>> > 2) Donate a jenkins compute node to openbmc CI
>> > 3) Convince the community that your system provides additional meta-*
>> >     layer coverage (or some other critical benefit) that would be worth
>> >     the additional hit to the existing CI infrastructure.
>> >
>> > We currently have a “gsj” system in CI. Would it make sense to replace
>> > it with this new “gbs” machine?
>> 
>> Jumping on this thread to say that I'm hoping to have quanta-gbs
>> support in upstream qemu shortly --- so we could also enable this as a
>> Qemu CI machine.
>> 
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Thanks a lot.
>> > >
>> > > Best Regards
>> > > George Hung
>> > >
>> >
> 

Re: CI build for quanta/gbs

[Brandon Kim]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5219 bytes --]

Apologies, one of my old patch that Quanta seemed to have been using was
finally merged (
https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/c/openbmc/phosphor-hwmon/+/24337/) and
it seems like that caused the patch failure you see here.

Here is the fix that should fix the problem:
https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/c/openbmc/openbmc/+/43046

Thanks,
Brandon

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 8:55 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> > On May 7, 2021, at 7:19 PM, Brandon Kim <brandonkim@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > Do you mind kicking off the docker build again for gbs? It looks like
> sslh bump may have  been needed from meta-google
> https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/c/openbmc/openbmc/+/43015
>
> The job runs daily (when new code is available), looks like we’re on to
> something new now?
>
>
> https://jenkins.openbmc.org/job/latest-master/label=docker-builder,target=gbs/234/console
>
> 3 out of 5 hunks FAILED -- rejects in file sensor.hpp
> Patch 0001-sensor-Implement-sensor-ASYNC_READ_TIMEOUT.patch does not apply
> (enforce with -f)
>
> stderr:
> ERROR: Logfile of failure stored in:
> /data0/jenkins/workspace/latest-master/label/docker-builder/target/gbs/build/work/armv7a-openbmc-linux-gnueabi/phosphor-hwmon/1.0+gitAUTOINC+6d50c3e9e1-r1/temp/log.do_patch.19118
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Brandon
> >
> > On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 11:26 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On May 7, 2021, at 2:10 AM, George Hung (洪忠敬) <George.Hung@quantatw.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Andrew,
> >>
> >> We already fix the patch error for phosphor-hwmon, could you help
> proceed to join the quanta/gbs to CI build ?
> >
> > Hey George, I’ve added it to our daily build, it’s still not passing for
> gbs though. Please take a look at
> https://jenkins.openbmc.org/job/latest-master/233/label=docker-builder,target=gbs/
> >
> > Once I see that daily job pass I’ll add it to our official CI job.
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks a lot.
> >>
> >> Best Regards
> >> George Hung
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Andrew,
> >>
> >> It looks like it's due to my patch to phosphor-hwmon (which, the repo
> is going through some overhaul and is causing conflicts with). The patch in
> question is in the process of getting upstreamed and the repo is settling
> down, so I'll ping you on Discord once it looks ready to be tried again
> (hopefully by end of the week).
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Brandon
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 6:38 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On May 5, 2021, at 2:37 PM, Brandon Kim <brandonkim@google.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Andrew,
> >>
> >> `gbs` machine will provide meta-google coverage, so it would be great
> if `gbs` could be added in addition to `gsj` instead of as a replacement.
> >>
> >> Is there a shortage of OpenBMC CI nodes by any chance? Google has been
> providing 2 of the OpenBMC CI nodes, so it would be great if adding `gbs`
> could count towards one of those CI nodes.
> >>
> >> Yep, google donates two servers so sounds good. I added it to our daily
> build of master and it looks like it hit a build issue. We can coordinate
> in discord if you like but once we get this figured out, I’ll add it to the
> main openbmc/openbmc CI job.
> >>
> >>
> https://jenkins.openbmc.org/job/latest-master/231/label=docker-builder,target=gbs/console
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >> Brandon
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 10:54 AM Patrick Venture <venture@google.com>
> wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 6:25 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > On May 5, 2021, at 1:26 AM, George Hung (洪忠敬) <
> George.Hung@quantatw.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Hi Andrew Geissler,
> >> > >
> >> > > We have ported many OpenBMC features to quanta/gbs machine (Nuvoton
> BMC platform) and hope it could be added to CI build, could you help add
> quanta/gbs machine to CI build verification ? (I'm not familiar with this,
> if there's anything we need to do first, please let us know)
> >> >
> >> > Hey George,
> >> >
> >> > Getting a new system into CI doesn’t have the most defined process but
> >> > I think in general it has to fall under one of these due to our
> constraints
> >> > in compute power for CI:
> >> >
> >> > 1) Propose an existing system in CI to replace (and the benefits of
> that)
> >> > 2) Donate a jenkins compute node to openbmc CI
> >> > 3) Convince the community that your system provides additional meta-*
> >> >     layer coverage (or some other critical benefit) that would be
> worth
> >> >     the additional hit to the existing CI infrastructure.
> >> >
> >> > We currently have a “gsj” system in CI. Would it make sense to replace
> >> > it with this new “gbs” machine?
> >>
> >> Jumping on this thread to say that I'm hoping to have quanta-gbs
> >> support in upstream qemu shortly --- so we could also enable this as a
> >> Qemu CI machine.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks a lot.
> >> > >
> >> > > Best Regards
> >> > > George Hung
> >> > >
> >> >
> >
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7634 bytes --]

RE: CI build for quanta/gbs

[George Hung (洪忠敬)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8123 bytes --]

Hi Andrew,

Sorry to make your inconvenience, we already fix all CI build errors and also run CI build locally to make sure it can work fine.

Could you help to merge gbs to CI build ?


Thanks a lot.

Best Regards
George Hung

Apologies, one of my old patch that Quanta seemed to have been using was finally merged (https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/c/openbmc/phosphor-hwmon/+/24337/<https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgerrit.openbmc-project.xyz%2Fc%2Fopenbmc%2Fphosphor-hwmon%2F%2B%2F24337%2F&data=04%7C01%7CGeorge.Hung%40quantatw.com%7Cf14bf68a6eda43ecd9cb08d913d34095%7C179b032707fc4973ac738de7313561b2%7C1%7C0%7C637562620333625510%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=H3SuUrMps%2Fbk9ldjC9sLjZ5jUyWPKdcpdqZY1jDg0eY%3D&reserved=0>) and it seems like that caused the patch failure you see here.

Here is the fix that should fix the problem: https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/c/openbmc/openbmc/+/43046<https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgerrit.openbmc-project.xyz%2Fc%2Fopenbmc%2Fopenbmc%2F%2B%2F43046&data=04%7C01%7CGeorge.Hung%40quantatw.com%7Cf14bf68a6eda43ecd9cb08d913d34095%7C179b032707fc4973ac738de7313561b2%7C1%7C0%7C637562620333635505%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=6Hqn5G5fpMZNDs1zZv16kYp%2BwnK8sBkKZ3nJCJhhcXs%3D&reserved=0>

Thanks,
Brandon

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 8:55 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com<mailto:geissonator@gmail.com>> wrote:


> On May 7, 2021, at 7:19 PM, Brandon Kim <brandonkim@google.com<mailto:brandonkim@google.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Do you mind kicking off the docker build again for gbs? It looks like sslh bump may have  been needed from meta-google https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/c/openbmc/openbmc/+/43015<https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgerrit.openbmc-project.xyz%2Fc%2Fopenbmc%2Fopenbmc%2F%2B%2F43015&data=04%7C01%7CGeorge.Hung%40quantatw.com%7Cf14bf68a6eda43ecd9cb08d913d34095%7C179b032707fc4973ac738de7313561b2%7C1%7C0%7C637562620333635505%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Njf%2BpXtlrmEm%2BkTnUgTbP7XVebxL2fGD%2FWiGHPyEnis%3D&reserved=0>

The job runs daily (when new code is available), looks like we’re on to something new now?

https://jenkins.openbmc.org/job/latest-master/label=docker-builder,target=gbs/234/console<https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjenkins.openbmc.org%2Fjob%2Flatest-master%2Flabel%3Ddocker-builder%2Ctarget%3Dgbs%2F234%2Fconsole&data=04%7C01%7CGeorge.Hung%40quantatw.com%7Cf14bf68a6eda43ecd9cb08d913d34095%7C179b032707fc4973ac738de7313561b2%7C1%7C0%7C637562620333645499%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=5ihpCM6tZ6J4Yc%2B28gBF%2Fzu6BrWXcukzT45eUeeWbYM%3D&reserved=0>

3 out of 5 hunks FAILED -- rejects in file sensor.hpp
Patch 0001-sensor-Implement-sensor-ASYNC_READ_TIMEOUT.patch does not apply (enforce with -f)

stderr:
ERROR: Logfile of failure stored in: /data0/jenkins/workspace/latest-master/label/docker-builder/target/gbs/build/work/armv7a-openbmc-linux-gnueabi/phosphor-hwmon/1.0+gitAUTOINC+6d50c3e9e1-r1/temp/log.do_patch.19118


>
> Thanks,
> Brandon
>
> On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 11:26 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com<mailto:geissonator@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>> On May 7, 2021, at 2:10 AM, George Hung (洪忠敬) <George.Hung@quantatw.com<mailto:George.Hung@quantatw.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> We already fix the patch error for phosphor-hwmon, could you help proceed to join the quanta/gbs to CI build ?
>
> Hey George, I’ve added it to our daily build, it’s still not passing for gbs though. Please take a look at https://jenkins.openbmc.org/job/latest-master/233/label=docker-builder,target=gbs/<https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjenkins.openbmc.org%2Fjob%2Flatest-master%2F233%2Flabel%3Ddocker-builder%2Ctarget%3Dgbs%2F&data=04%7C01%7CGeorge.Hung%40quantatw.com%7Cf14bf68a6eda43ecd9cb08d913d34095%7C179b032707fc4973ac738de7313561b2%7C1%7C0%7C637562620333645499%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=%2B1AiXcy6IKqUH9q%2FUsLzziLqKzc6kZ0TwHicI%2FzMhtA%3D&reserved=0>
>
> Once I see that daily job pass I’ll add it to our official CI job.
>
>>
>> Thanks a lot.
>>
>> Best Regards
>> George Hung
>>
>>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> It looks like it's due to my patch to phosphor-hwmon (which, the repo is going through some overhaul and is causing conflicts with). The patch in question is in the process of getting upstreamed and the repo is settling down, so I'll ping you on Discord once it looks ready to be tried again (hopefully by end of the week).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Brandon
>>
>> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 6:38 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com<mailto:geissonator@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 5, 2021, at 2:37 PM, Brandon Kim <brandonkim@google.com<mailto:brandonkim@google.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> `gbs` machine will provide meta-google coverage, so it would be great if `gbs` could be added in addition to `gsj` instead of as a replacement.
>>
>> Is there a shortage of OpenBMC CI nodes by any chance? Google has been providing 2 of the OpenBMC CI nodes, so it would be great if adding `gbs` could count towards one of those CI nodes.
>>
>> Yep, google donates two servers so sounds good. I added it to our daily build of master and it looks like it hit a build issue. We can coordinate in discord if you like but once we get this figured out, I’ll add it to the main openbmc/openbmc CI job.
>>
>> https://jenkins.openbmc.org/job/latest-master/231/label=docker-builder,target=gbs/console<https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjenkins.openbmc.org%2Fjob%2Flatest-master%2F231%2Flabel%3Ddocker-builder%2Ctarget%3Dgbs%2Fconsole&data=04%7C01%7CGeorge.Hung%40quantatw.com%7Cf14bf68a6eda43ecd9cb08d913d34095%7C179b032707fc4973ac738de7313561b2%7C1%7C0%7C637562620333655492%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=xgF1YOH7ZSPEV6kL93wqw0Dgo0N7o7Ngggw9%2Fa0zxGw%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Brandon
>>
>> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 10:54 AM Patrick Venture <venture@google.com<mailto:venture@google.com>> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 6:25 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com<mailto:geissonator@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > On May 5, 2021, at 1:26 AM, George Hung (洪忠敬) <George.Hung@quantatw.com<mailto:George.Hung@quantatw.com>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hi Andrew Geissler,
>> > >
>> > > We have ported many OpenBMC features to quanta/gbs machine (Nuvoton BMC platform) and hope it could be added to CI build, could you help add quanta/gbs machine to CI build verification ? (I'm not familiar with this, if there's anything we need to do first, please let us know)
>> >
>> > Hey George,
>> >
>> > Getting a new system into CI doesn’t have the most defined process but
>> > I think in general it has to fall under one of these due to our constraints
>> > in compute power for CI:
>> >
>> > 1) Propose an existing system in CI to replace (and the benefits of that)
>> > 2) Donate a jenkins compute node to openbmc CI
>> > 3) Convince the community that your system provides additional meta-*
>> >     layer coverage (or some other critical benefit) that would be worth
>> >     the additional hit to the existing CI infrastructure.
>> >
>> > We currently have a “gsj” system in CI. Would it make sense to replace
>> > it with this new “gbs” machine?
>>
>> Jumping on this thread to say that I'm hoping to have quanta-gbs
>> support in upstream qemu shortly --- so we could also enable this as a
>> Qemu CI machine.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Thanks a lot.
>> > >
>> > > Best Regards
>> > > George Hung
>> > >
>> >
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 15909 bytes --]

Re: CI build for quanta/gbs

[Andrew Geissler]

> On May 13, 2021, at 7:47 AM, George Hung (洪忠敬) <George.Hung@quantatw.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Andrew,
>  
> Sorry to make your inconvenience, we already fix all CI build errors and also run CI build locally to make sure it can work fine.

Looks good, I added it to https://jenkins.openbmc.org/job/ci-openbmc/

Andrew

>  
> Could you help to merge gbs to CI build ?
>  
>  
> Thanks a lot.
>  
> Best Regards
> George Hung
> 
>  
> Apologies, one of my old patch that Quanta seemed to have been using was finally merged (https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/c/openbmc/phosphor-hwmon/+/24337/) and it seems like that caused the patch failure you see here.
>  
> Here is the fix that should fix the problem: https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/c/openbmc/openbmc/+/43046
>  
> Thanks,
> Brandon
>  
> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 8:55 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> > On May 7, 2021, at 7:19 PM, Brandon Kim <brandonkim@google.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Andrew,
> > 
> > Do you mind kicking off the docker build again for gbs? It looks like sslh bump may have  been needed from meta-google https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/c/openbmc/openbmc/+/43015
> 
> The job runs daily (when new code is available), looks like we’re on to something new now?
> 
> https://jenkins.openbmc.org/job/latest-master/label=docker-builder,target=gbs/234/console
> 
> 3 out of 5 hunks FAILED -- rejects in file sensor.hpp
> Patch 0001-sensor-Implement-sensor-ASYNC_READ_TIMEOUT.patch does not apply (enforce with -f)
> 
> stderr: 
> ERROR: Logfile of failure stored in: /data0/jenkins/workspace/latest-master/label/docker-builder/target/gbs/build/work/armv7a-openbmc-linux-gnueabi/phosphor-hwmon/1.0+gitAUTOINC+6d50c3e9e1-r1/temp/log.do_patch.19118
> 
> 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Brandon
> > 
> > On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 11:26 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >> On May 7, 2021, at 2:10 AM, George Hung (洪忠敬) <George.Hung@quantatw.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> Hi Andrew,
> >>  
> >> We already fix the patch error for phosphor-hwmon, could you help proceed to join the quanta/gbs to CI build ?
> > 
> > Hey George, I’ve added it to our daily build, it’s still not passing for gbs though. Please take a look at https://jenkins.openbmc.org/job/latest-master/233/label=docker-builder,target=gbs/ 
> > 
> > Once I see that daily job pass I’ll add it to our official CI job.
> > 
> >>  
> >> Thanks a lot.
> >>  
> >> Best Regards
> >> George Hung
> >> 
> >>  
> >> Hi Andrew,
> >>  
> >> It looks like it's due to my patch to phosphor-hwmon (which, the repo is going through some overhaul and is causing conflicts with). The patch in question is in the process of getting upstreamed and the repo is settling down, so I'll ping you on Discord once it looks ready to be tried again (hopefully by end of the week).
> >>  
> >> Thanks,
> >> Brandon
> >>  
> >> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 6:38 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>  
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On May 5, 2021, at 2:37 PM, Brandon Kim <brandonkim@google.com> wrote:
> >>  
> >> Hi Andrew,
> >>  
> >> `gbs` machine will provide meta-google coverage, so it would be great if `gbs` could be added in addition to `gsj` instead of as a replacement.
> >>  
> >> Is there a shortage of OpenBMC CI nodes by any chance? Google has been providing 2 of the OpenBMC CI nodes, so it would be great if adding `gbs` could count towards one of those CI nodes.
> >>  
> >> Yep, google donates two servers so sounds good. I added it to our daily build of master and it looks like it hit a build issue. We can coordinate in discord if you like but once we get this figured out, I’ll add it to the main openbmc/openbmc CI job.
> >>  
> >> https://jenkins.openbmc.org/job/latest-master/231/label=docker-builder,target=gbs/console
> >> 
> >> 
> >>  
> >> Thank you,
> >> Brandon
> >>  
> >> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 10:54 AM Patrick Venture <venture@google.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 6:25 AM Andrew Geissler <geissonator@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > On May 5, 2021, at 1:26 AM, George Hung (洪忠敬) <George.Hung@quantatw.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Hi Andrew Geissler,
> >> > >
> >> > > We have ported many OpenBMC features to quanta/gbs machine (Nuvoton BMC platform) and hope it could be added to CI build, could you help add quanta/gbs machine to CI build verification ? (I'm not familiar with this, if there's anything we need to do first, please let us know)
> >> >
> >> > Hey George,
> >> >
> >> > Getting a new system into CI doesn’t have the most defined process but
> >> > I think in general it has to fall under one of these due to our constraints
> >> > in compute power for CI:
> >> >
> >> > 1) Propose an existing system in CI to replace (and the benefits of that)
> >> > 2) Donate a jenkins compute node to openbmc CI
> >> > 3) Convince the community that your system provides additional meta-*
> >> >     layer coverage (or some other critical benefit) that would be worth
> >> >     the additional hit to the existing CI infrastructure.
> >> >
> >> > We currently have a “gsj” system in CI. Would it make sense to replace
> >> > it with this new “gbs” machine?
> >> 
> >> Jumping on this thread to say that I'm hoping to have quanta-gbs
> >> support in upstream qemu shortly --- so we could also enable this as a
> >> Qemu CI machine.
> >> 
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks a lot.
> >> > >
> >> > > Best Regards
> >> > > George Hung
> >> > >
> >> >
> > 
> 

RE: CI build for quanta/gbs

[George Hung (洪忠敬)]

>> On May 13, 2021, at 7:47 AM, George Hung (洪忠敬)
><George.Hung@quantatw.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> Sorry to make your inconvenience, we already fix all CI build errors and also
>run CI build locally to make sure it can work fine.
>
>Looks good, I added it to
>https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjenkins.
>openbmc.org%2Fjob%2Fci-openbmc%2F&amp;data=04%7C01%7CGeorge.Hun
>g%40quantatw.com%7Cbdf1bd54f9e6469fcfb608d9164ce610%7C179b032707f
>c4973ac738de7313561b2%7C1%7C0%7C637565341801074286%7CUnknown%
>7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiL
>CJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=lvPLvON3tGg2Ntj0Q8v%2FbS2ra8HVhyt
>7vZTlgpFXx2s%3D&amp;reserved=0
>
>Andrew

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your help.

Best Regards
George Hung

>
>>
>> Could you help to merge gbs to CI build ?
>>
>>
>> Thanks a lot.
>>
>> Best Regards
>> George Hung
>>
>>
>> Apologies, one of my old patch that Quanta seemed to have been using was
>finally merged
>(https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgerrit.o
>penbmc-project.xyz%2Fc%2Fopenbmc%2Fphosphor-hwmon%2F%2B%2F24337
>%2F&amp;data=04%7C01%7CGeorge.Hung%40quantatw.com%7Cbdf1bd54f9e
>6469fcfb608d9164ce610%7C179b032707fc4973ac738de7313561b2%7C1%7C0
>%7C637565341801074286%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjA
>wMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sda
>ta=ZIEJ1Yq%2FTqb%2F50fVnk0Q0wRElfQDu9JbPLGRzs280F4%3D&amp;reserve
>d=0) and it seems like that caused the patch failure you see here.
>>
>> Here is the fix that should fix the problem:
>> https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgerr
>>
>it.openbmc-project.xyz%2Fc%2Fopenbmc%2Fopenbmc%2F%2B%2F43046&am
>p;data=
>>
>04%7C01%7CGeorge.Hung%40quantatw.com%7Cbdf1bd54f9e6469fcfb608d91
>64ce61
>>
>0%7C179b032707fc4973ac738de7313561b2%7C1%7C0%7C6375653418010742
>86%7CUn
>>
>known%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik
>1haW
>>
>wiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=KncfyyEAgOdMj3ZKKCPpYjdss6panj
>%2FsCj
>> SyqBULpho%3D&amp;reserved=0
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Brandon
>>
>> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 8:55 AM Andrew Geissler
><geissonator@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On May 7, 2021, at 7:19 PM, Brandon Kim <brandonkim@google.com>
>wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Andrew,
>> >
>> > Do you mind kicking off the docker build again for gbs? It looks
>> > like sslh bump may have  been needed from meta-google
>> > https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fge
>> >
>rrit.openbmc-project.xyz%2Fc%2Fopenbmc%2Fopenbmc%2F%2B%2F43015&a
>mp;d
>> >
>ata=04%7C01%7CGeorge.Hung%40quantatw.com%7Cbdf1bd54f9e6469fcfb608
>d91
>> >
>64ce610%7C179b032707fc4973ac738de7313561b2%7C1%7C0%7C6375653418
>01074
>> >
>286%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzI
>iLCJB
>> >
>TiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=tJ9WsWMHc28p9Pbw1Ljl
>gOJJ
>> > yplLxPyuObJc0zwhz%2FY%3D&amp;reserved=0
>>
>> The job runs daily (when new code is available), looks like we’re on to
>something new now?
>>
>> https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjenk
>>
>ins.openbmc.org%2Fjob%2Flatest-master%2Flabel%3Ddocker-builder%2Ctarge
>>
>t%3Dgbs%2F234%2Fconsole&amp;data=04%7C01%7CGeorge.Hung%40quantat
>w.com%
>>
>7Cbdf1bd54f9e6469fcfb608d9164ce610%7C179b032707fc4973ac738de731356
>1b2%
>>
>7C1%7C0%7C637565341801074286%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoi
>MC4wLjAwM
>>
>DAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=
>%2F
>>
>CrcWgPBWhLB4ArEaRxQBzn2w8uYq%2FeakfNgRKRfO3s%3D&amp;reserved=0
>>
>> 3 out of 5 hunks FAILED -- rejects in file sensor.hpp Patch
>> 0001-sensor-Implement-sensor-ASYNC_READ_TIMEOUT.patch does not
>apply
>> (enforce with -f)
>>
>> stderr:
>> ERROR: Logfile of failure stored in:
>> /data0/jenkins/workspace/latest-master/label/docker-builder/target/gbs
>>
>/build/work/armv7a-openbmc-linux-gnueabi/phosphor-hwmon/1.0+gitAUTOI
>NC
>> +6d50c3e9e1-r1/temp/log.do_patch.19118
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Brandon
>> >
>> > On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 11:26 AM Andrew Geissler
><geissonator@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> On May 7, 2021, at 2:10 AM, George Hung (洪忠敬)
><George.Hung@quantatw.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Andrew,
>> >>
>> >> We already fix the patch error for phosphor-hwmon, could you help
>proceed to join the quanta/gbs to CI build ?
>> >
>> > Hey George, I’ve added it to our daily build, it’s still not passing
>> > for gbs though. Please take a look at
>> > https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fje
>> >
>nkins.openbmc.org%2Fjob%2Flatest-master%2F233%2Flabel%3Ddocker-build
>> >
>er%2Ctarget%3Dgbs%2F&amp;data=04%7C01%7CGeorge.Hung%40quantatw.c
>om%7
>> >
>Cbdf1bd54f9e6469fcfb608d9164ce610%7C179b032707fc4973ac738de7313561
>b2
>> >
>%7C1%7C0%7C637565341801074286%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjo
>iMC4wLj
>> >
>AwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;s
>dat
>> >
>a=8dHES3w6Qidjw8L8hoOSxSyHpkIhVfMCB22ZU0cv5FU%3D&amp;reserved=0
>> >
>> > Once I see that daily job pass I’ll add it to our official CI job.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Thanks a lot.
>> >>
>> >> Best Regards
>> >> George Hung
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Hi Andrew,
>> >>
>> >> It looks like it's due to my patch to phosphor-hwmon (which, the repo is
>going through some overhaul and is causing conflicts with). The patch in
>question is in the process of getting upstreamed and the repo is settling
>down, so I'll ping you on Discord once it looks ready to be tried again
>(hopefully by end of the week).
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Brandon
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 6:38 AM Andrew Geissler
><geissonator@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On May 5, 2021, at 2:37 PM, Brandon Kim <brandonkim@google.com>
>wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Andrew,
>> >>
>> >> `gbs` machine will provide meta-google coverage, so it would be great if
>`gbs` could be added in addition to `gsj` instead of as a replacement.
>> >>
>> >> Is there a shortage of OpenBMC CI nodes by any chance? Google has
>been providing 2 of the OpenBMC CI nodes, so it would be great if adding
>`gbs` could count towards one of those CI nodes.
>> >>
>> >> Yep, google donates two servers so sounds good. I added it to our daily
>build of master and it looks like it hit a build issue. We can coordinate in
>discord if you like but once we get this figured out, I’ll add it to the main
>openbmc/openbmc CI job.
>> >>
>> >> https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fj
>> >>
>enkins.openbmc.org%2Fjob%2Flatest-master%2F231%2Flabel%3Ddocker-bui
>> >>
>lder%2Ctarget%3Dgbs%2Fconsole&amp;data=04%7C01%7CGeorge.Hung%40q
>uan
>> >>
>tatw.com%7Cbdf1bd54f9e6469fcfb608d9164ce610%7C179b032707fc4973ac73
>8
>> >>
>de7313561b2%7C1%7C0%7C637565341801074286%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZ
>sb3d8ey
>> >>
>JWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7
>C
>> >>
>1000&amp;sdata=OZgsGhJNo%2FsNtPU4BZVnuarB14dJ%2Blc9ujFVjMPxqaw%3
>D&a
>> >> mp;reserved=0
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thank you,
>> >> Brandon
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 10:54 AM Patrick Venture
><venture@google.com> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 6:25 AM Andrew Geissler
><geissonator@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > > On May 5, 2021, at 1:26 AM, George Hung (洪忠敬)
><George.Hung@quantatw.com> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Hi Andrew Geissler,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > We have ported many OpenBMC features to quanta/gbs machine
>> >> > > (Nuvoton BMC platform) and hope it could be added to CI build,
>> >> > > could you help add quanta/gbs machine to CI build verification
>> >> > > ? (I'm not familiar with this, if there's anything we need to
>> >> > > do first, please let us know)
>> >> >
>> >> > Hey George,
>> >> >
>> >> > Getting a new system into CI doesn’t have the most defined
>> >> > process but I think in general it has to fall under one of these
>> >> > due to our constraints in compute power for CI:
>> >> >
>> >> > 1) Propose an existing system in CI to replace (and the benefits
>> >> > of that)
>> >> > 2) Donate a jenkins compute node to openbmc CI
>> >> > 3) Convince the community that your system provides additional
>meta-*
>> >> >     layer coverage (or some other critical benefit) that would be
>worth
>> >> >     the additional hit to the existing CI infrastructure.
>> >> >
>> >> > We currently have a “gsj” system in CI. Would it make sense to
>> >> > replace it with this new “gbs” machine?
>> >>
>> >> Jumping on this thread to say that I'm hoping to have quanta-gbs
>> >> support in upstream qemu shortly --- so we could also enable this
>> >> as a Qemu CI machine.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Thanks a lot.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Best Regards
>> >> > > George Hung
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >
>>