On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 10:37:20 -0700 David Ahern wrote:
On 11/25/20 9:47 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 21:37:18 -0700 David Ahern wrote:
On 11/24/20 6:58 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
But it's generally not a huge issue for applying the patch. I just like to see the build bot result, to make sure we're not adding W=1 C=1 warnings.
ah, the build bot part is new. got it.
BTW I was wondering for the longest time how to structure things so that build bot can also build iproute2 in case we want to run tests attached to the series and the tests depend on iproute2 changes...
But let's cross that bridge when we get there.
Why not cross it now? You handled the switch over to new a patchworks with a build bot, so we can take advantage of automation.
Seems like the bot needs to detect 'net', 'net-next', 'bpf' and 'bpf-next' as they are all different trees for the kernel patches. iproute2 is just another tree, so it should be able to put those in a different bucket for automated builds - even if it means a 'set' crosses trees.
Actually part of the reason is that we use up 32 vCPUs just to do build testing. I don't think we can afford to individually selftest every series. And if we only run the tests ~nightly we can grab all outstanding patches for iproute2 from the ML and we should be good.
At least that's my current thinking. I probably won't have time to implement any of this until Dave is back 100% and then some, anyway ;)