[dpdk-ci] Master compilation failures in Intel CI

[David Marchand]

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 7:06 AM Zhang, XuemingX <xuemingx.zhang at intel.com>
wrote:

> >Can you give me a list of patchsets you think are problematic so
>
> >that I can test them?
>
>
>
> Filter some recent patch sets and list problematic patchsets.
>
>
>
> In the table below, which branch does it make more sense to apply the
> patchsets? Old_guess_tree or new_guess_tree or next-**?
>
> Please fill in the form guess_tree column.
>

Please, don't use html for a simple list.


>
> serite_id
>
> old_guess_tree
>
> new_guess_tree
>
> serite_url
>
> Author
>
> guess_tree
>
> 8174
>
> dpdk-next-net-mlx
>
> dpdk
>
> *http://patchwork.dpdk.org/api/series/8174
> <http://patchwork.dpdk.org/api/series/8174>*
>
> Viacheslav Ovsiienko
>
>
>
> 8158
>
> dpdk-next-crypto
>
> dpdk
>
> *http://patchwork.dpdk.org/api/series/8158
> <http://patchwork.dpdk.org/api/series/8158>*
>
> Pablo de Lara
>
>
>
> 8154
>
> dpdk-next-net
>
> dpdk
>
> *http://patchwork.dpdk.org/api/series/8154
> <http://patchwork.dpdk.org/api/series/8154>*
>
> Xiaoyu Min
>
>
>
> 8153
>
> dpdk-next-net
>
> dpdk
>
> *http://patchwork.dpdk.org/api/series/8153
> <http://patchwork.dpdk.org/api/series/8153>*
>
> Wei Hu (Xavier)
>
>
>
> 8177
>
> dpdk-next-net-mlx
>
> dpdk
>
> *http://patchwork.dpdk.org/api/series/8177
> <http://patchwork.dpdk.org/api/series/8177>*
>
> Dekel Peled
>
>
>
> 8162
>
> dpdk-next-net
>
> dpdk
>
> *http://patchwork.dpdk.org/api/series/8162
> <http://patchwork.dpdk.org/api/series/8162>*
>
> Bernard Iremonger
>
>
>
> 8169
>
> dpdk-next-net-intel
>
> dpdk
>
> *http://patchwork.dpdk.org/api/series/8169
> <http://patchwork.dpdk.org/api/series/8169>*
>
> Bernard Iremonger
>
>
>
>
>

I am ok with reverting the change on the script, but, once done some fixes
are needed in MAINTAINERS:

- 8174 should go to the main repository, since there are mbuf changes, but
mbuf is not marked to go to the main repository, to be fixed,
- 8158 touches a devtools/ script, but I suppose Thomsa and I will see this
kind of change, we can leave it in MAINTAINERS as it is,
- 8154 is ok as it is,
- 8153 is ok as it is,
- 8177 is ok too,
- 8162 and others from Bernard are not a proper series, must be resent as a
series, but I can see Ferruh already took it,



-- 
David Marchand

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/ci/attachments/20200120/ea2ab2da/attachment.html>