[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/4] ci: reorganise Travis jobs

Aaron Conole aconole at redhat.com
Thu Feb 20 15:35:19 CET 2020


David Marchand <david.marchand at redhat.com> writes:

> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 11:42 AM Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net> wrote:
>>
>> 19/02/2020 22:39, Aaron Conole:
>> > David Marchand <david.marchand at redhat.com> writes:
>> >
>> > > Let's prune the jobs list to limit the amount of time spent by the robot
>> > > in Travis.
>> > >
>> > > Since meson enables automatically the relevant components, there is not
>> > > much gain in testing with extra_packages vs required_packages only.
>> > >
>> > > For a given arch/compiler/env combination, compilation is first tested
>> > > in all jobs that run tests or build the docs or run the ABI checks.
>> > > In the same context, for jobs that accumulates running tests, building
>> > > the docs etc..., those steps are independent and can be split to save
>> > > some cpu on Travis.
>> > >
>> > > With this, we go down from 21 to 15 jobs.
>> > >
>> > > Note: this patch requires a flush of the existing caches in Travis.
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand at redhat.com>
>> > > ---
>> >
>> > In general, I think the idea with required vs. extra was to have a build
>> > that did the minimum required, and one that did all the packages (to
>> > allow a minimum vs. full DPDK).
>> >
>> > At least, that's from
>> > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-January/124007.html
>>
>> I think the benefit of a minimum build is to have a quick report,
>> and easy to setup.
>
> Yes, Travis serves as a first gate when submitting patches.
> But since Travis is best effort/free, we can't have a full coverage.
>
>
>> > Not sure if that's still something anyone cares about.
>>
>> Given that Travis knows how to satisfy the dependencies,
>> and that we must wait for all jobs to finish,
>> I don't see any benefit of a minimal setup.
>
> This minimal setup also tests that dpdk dependencies are correct.
> If a change makes something rely on libX and libX is in the packages
> always installed in Travis, the missing dependency would not get
> caught.
>
> But here, this adds too many jobs.
>
> UNH, Intel and other CIs should step in and fill this kind of gap.

Okay, makes sense to me.  Are one of these CI providers offering to
cover this?

Also,

Acked-by: Aaron Conole <aconole at redhat.com>

>
> --
> David Marchand



More information about the dev mailing list