[dpdk-ci] Failures reported by Intel CI for series 10551
zhaoyan.chen at intel.com
Fri Jun 26 05:03:20 CEST 2020
For your question, "Is it normal to see all patches with the exact same test report?"
Yes, we always test a series, rather than a single patch. You can see the exact same report
on any patch in a series. (it's convenient, you don't need backward to search
the header of the series, then check result)
" One thing that comes to mind, do we have dpdk headers installed system-
> wide on the Intel CI server(s)?"
Sure, we do. We don't see any problem on other patch compilation, so far. but it's strange
that your V2 and V3 is same, but v3 test is failed. (code base is same). So I will try to re-run
your series(v3), and check what's changed on CI system between the 2 days. Is that helpful?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Marchand <david.marchand at redhat.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 3:08 PM
> To: Chen, Zhaoyan <zhaoyan.chen at intel.com>
> Cc: ci at dpdk.org; sys_stv <sys_stv at intel.com>
> Subject: Failures reported by Intel CI for series 10551
> (It looks like I have no luck with CI those days... :-)).
> All patches of a series of mine
> (https://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=10551) are marked
> as failing all compilation in Intel CI.
> - Is it normal to see all patches with the exact same test report?
> Patch 1: http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2020-
> Patch 9: http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2020-
> UNH and ovsrobot only report once when testing a full series.
> It makes more sense if Intel CI only tests full series.
> - Putting the first point aside, and focusing on patch 9 error:
> ../drivers/mempool/bucket/rte_mempool_bucket.c: In function
> ../drivers/mempool/bucket/rte_mempool_bucket.c:400:2: error: implicit
> declaration of function ‘rte_lcore_iterate’; did you mean
> ‘rte_lcore_is_enabled’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> rte_lcore_iterate(count_per_lcore, &ctx);
> ../drivers/mempool/bucket/rte_mempool_bucket.c:400:2: error: nested
> extern declaration of ‘rte_lcore_iterate’ [-Werror=nested-externs]
> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
> This function is defined in rte_lcore.h which does seem to be included,
> seeing how the compiler suggests another rte_lcore_is_enabled function.
> The v2 revision passed fine
> (http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2020-June/137552.html) and I
> see no change in v3 that would break like this.
> I am a bit puzzled...
> One thing that comes to mind, do we have dpdk headers installed system-
> wide on the Intel CI server(s)?
> David Marchand
More information about the ci