On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 10:26:35AM +0000, Kevin's boot bot wrote:
Status report database: http://status.armcloud.us/boot/all/job/rmk/kernel/v3.17-1-g7fc1505/
Tree/Branch: rmk Git describe: v3.17-1-g7fc1505 Failed boot tests ================= omap3-n900,legacy: FAIL: arm-omap2plus_defconfig http://armcloud.us/kernel-ci/rmk/v3.17-1-g7fc1505/arm-omap2plus_defconfig/bo...
Err, this report is wrong.
Olof's build report showed that *all* ARM builds failed:
Passed: 3 Failed: 124
The only builds which passed where three ARM64 builds. Given that:
arm-shmobile_defconfig
emev2-kzm9d 0 min 26.5 sec: PASSarm-davinci_all_defconfig
dm365evm,legacy 0 min 19.6 sec: PASS da850-evm 0 min 17.4 sec: PASSarm-tegra_defconfig
tegra124-jetson-tk1 0 min 44.3 sec: PASS tegra30-beaver 0 min 21.4 sec: PASS
... more results showing ARM builds passing ...
is clearly incorrect. I think you're not booting what you think you're booting. Just check out:
http://arm-soc.lixom.net/buildlogs/rmk/v3.17-1-g7fc1505/
(notice the build ID is the same as the one in this report) and start wondering...
Russell King - ARM Linux linux@arm.linux.org.uk writes:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 10:26:35AM +0000, Kevin's boot bot wrote:
Status report database: http://status.armcloud.us/boot/all/job/rmk/kernel/v3.17-1-g7fc1505/
Tree/Branch: rmk Git describe: v3.17-1-g7fc1505 Failed boot tests ================= omap3-n900,legacy: FAIL: arm-omap2plus_defconfig http://armcloud.us/kernel-ci/rmk/v3.17-1-g7fc1505/arm-omap2plus_defconfig/bo...
Err, this report is wrong.
Olof's build report showed that *all* ARM builds failed:
Passed: 3 Failed: 124The only builds which passed where three ARM64 builds. Given that:
arm-shmobile_defconfig
emev2-kzm9d 0 min 26.5 sec: PASSarm-davinci_all_defconfig
dm365evm,legacy 0 min 19.6 sec: PASS da850-evm 0 min 17.4 sec: PASSarm-tegra_defconfig
tegra124-jetson-tk1 0 min 44.3 sec: PASS tegra30-beaver 0 min 21.4 sec: PASS... more results showing ARM builds passing ...
is clearly incorrect. I think you're not booting what you think you're booting.
I think you're assuming I'm booting the output of Olof's builds, which I'm not. Olof's builds failed due to compiler upgrade issues, but my builds[1] passed just fine, and I'm booting exactly what I think I"m booting.
Kevin
[1] http://status.armcloud.us/build/rmk/kernel/v3.17-1-g7fc1505/
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 06:21:49AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Russell King - ARM Linux linux@arm.linux.org.uk writes:
is clearly incorrect. I think you're not booting what you think you're booting.
I think you're assuming I'm booting the output of Olof's builds, which I'm not. Olof's builds failed due to compiler upgrade issues, but my builds[1] passed just fine, and I'm booting exactly what I think I"m booting.
Right, and this is an argument against these third party build systems, because people other than _you_ don't know what you're doing or how your system works.
Last time I heard any discussion on this (the Edinburgh kernel summit?), you had decided that Olof had faster build machines, and that you were using Olof's system as the build system, and you were booting the result of Olof's builds.
So, since that time, it seems you've changed it. The problem here is that no one knows that something has changed.
I think you need to keep people informed about how your build system is operating, because without that, I'm just going to end up ignoring these build emails since I can't rely on them to give me information which is in an understandable form.
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:43 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux linux@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 06:21:49AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Russell King - ARM Linux linux@arm.linux.org.uk writes:
is clearly incorrect. I think you're not booting what you think you're booting.
I think you're assuming I'm booting the output of Olof's builds, which I'm not. Olof's builds failed due to compiler upgrade issues, but my builds[1] passed just fine, and I'm booting exactly what I think I"m booting.
Right, and this is an argument against these third party build systems, because people other than _you_ don't know what you're doing or how your system works.
Last time I heard any discussion on this (the Edinburgh kernel summit?), you had decided that Olof had faster build machines, and that you were using Olof's system as the build system, and you were booting the result of Olof's builds.
So, since that time, it seems you've changed it. The problem here is that no one knows that something has changed.
Yes, I'm now using some build slaves provided by Linaro.
I think you need to keep people informed about how your build system is operating, because without that, I'm just going to end up ignoring these build emails since I can't rely on them to give me information which is in an understandable form.
You're right.
I'll update my boot reports so it's more clear what builds I'm using.
Kevin
kernel-build-reports@lists.linaro.org
-
Kevin Hilman -
Russell King - ARM Linux