Re: CKI hackfest @Plumbers invite

[Dan Rue <dan.rue@linaro.org>]

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:54:12AM -0400, Veronika Kabatova wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> as some of you have heard, CKI Project is planning hackfest CI meetings after
> Plumbers conference this year (Sept. 12-13). We would like to invite everyone
> who has interest in CI for kernel to come and join us.
> 
> The early agenda with summary is at the end of the email. If you think there's
> something important missing let us know! Also let us know in case you'd want to
> lead any of the sessions, we'd be happy to delegate out some work :)
> 
> 
> Please send us an email as soon as you decide to come and feel free to invite
> other people who should be present. We are not planning to cap the attendance
> right now but need to solve the logistics based on the interest. The event is
> free to attend, no additional registration except letting us know is needed.
> 
> Feel free to contact us if you have any questions,
> Veronika
> CKI Project

Hi Veronika! Thanks for organizing this. I plan to attend, and I'm happy
to help out.

With regard to the agenda, I've been following the '[Ksummit-discuss]
[MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Squashing bugs!'[1] thread with interest, as it
relates especially to 'Getting results to developers/maintainers'. This,
along with result aggregation, are important areas to focus.

Dan

[1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2019-May/006389.html

> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Here is an early agenda we put together:
> - Introductions
> - Common place for upstream results, result publishing in general
>   - The discussion on the mailing list is going strong so we might be able to
>     substitute this session for a different one in case everything is solved by
>     September.
> - Test result interpretation and bug detection
>   - How to autodetect infrastructure failures, regressions/new bugs and test
>     bugs? How to handle continuous failures due to known bugs in both tests and
>     kernel? What's your solution? Can people always trust the results they
>     receive?
> - Getting results to developers/maintainers
>   - Aimed at kernel developers and maintainers, share your feedback and
>     expectations.
>   - How much data should be sent in the initial communication vs. a click away
>     in a dashboard? Do you want incremental emails with new results as they come
>     in?
>   - What about adding checks to tested patches in Patchwork when patch series
>     are being tested?
>   - Providing enough data/script to reproduce the failure. What if special HW
>     is needed?
> - Onboarding new kernel trees to test
>   - Aimed at kernel developers and maintainers.
>   - Which trees are most prone to bring in new problems? Which are the most
>     critical ones? Do you want them to be tested? Which tests do you feel are
>     most beneficial for specific trees or in general?
> - Security when testing untrusted patches
>   - How do we merge, compile, and test patches that have untrusted code in them
>     and have not yet been reviewed? How do we avoid abuse of systems,
>     information theft, or other damage?
>   - Check out the original patch that sparked the discussion at
>     https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/862123/
> - Avoiding effort duplication
>   - Food for thought by GregKH
>   - X different CI systems running ${TEST} on latest stable kernel on x86_64
>     might look useless on the first look but is it? AMD/Intel CPUs, different
>     network cards, different graphic drivers, compilers, kernel configuration...
>     How do we distribute the workload to avoid doing the same thing all over
>     again while still running in enough different environments to get the most
>     coverage?
> - Common hardware pools
>   - Is this something people are interested in? Would be helpful especially for
>     HW that's hard to access, eg. ppc64le or s390x systems. Companies could also
>     sing up to share their HW for testing to ensure kernel works with their
>     products.

-- 
Linaro - Kernel Validation