----- Original Message -----

From: "Guillaume Tucker" guillaume.tucker@gmail.com To: kernelci@groups.io, vkabatov@redhat.com Cc: automated-testing@yoctoproject.org, info@kernelci.org, "Tim Bird" Tim.Bird@sony.com, khilamn@baylibre.org, syzkaller@googlegroups.com, lkp@lists.01.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, "Laura Abbott" labbott@redhat.com, "Eliska Slobodova" eslobodo@redhat.com, "CKI Project" cki-project@redhat.com Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 5:42:11 PM Subject: Re: CKI hackfest @Plumbers invite

Hi Veronika,

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 3:55 PM Veronika Kabatova vkabatov@redhat.com wrote:

...

Hi,

as some of you have heard, CKI Project is planning hackfest CI meetings after Plumbers conference this year (Sept. 12-13). We would like to invite everyone who has interest in CI for kernel to come and join us.

The early agenda with summary is at the end of the email. If you think there's something important missing let us know! Also let us know in case you'd want to lead any of the sessions, we'd be happy to delegate out some work :)

Please send us an email as soon as you decide to come and feel free to invite other people who should be present. We are not planning to cap the attendance right now but need to solve the logistics based on the interest. The event is free to attend, no additional registration except letting us know is needed.

Please do count me in as well!

\o/

One topic I would like to add to the agenda is:

• Open testing philosophy
  • Connecting components from different origins: builders, test labs, databases, dashboards...
  • Interoperability: documented remote APIs to let components talk to each other
  • kernelci.org already does this with distributed builds and test labs, it would be good to apply the same principles to to other existing systems doing upstream kernel testing for everyone's benefit
  • Optimal utilisation of available resources
  • Enable more high-level features by joining forces (bisections, cross-referencing of results, bug tracking...)

This does have some commonality with "Common hardware pools" and "Avoiding effort duplication" but I think it makes sense to keep it together as a general approach.

I agree that this topic is important (and I believe some other CKI people made that clear as well) so I added it to the agenda topics. The list of those is getting long so we'd definitely need to curate it properly soon but I'll make sure this stays there.

Thanks for the interest! Veronika

Thanks, Guillaume

Feel free to contact us if you have any questions,

...

Veronika CKI Project

---

Here is an early agenda we put together:

• Introductions
• Common place for upstream results, result publishing in general
  • The discussion on the mailing list is going strong so we might be able

to substitute this session for a different one in case everything is solved by September.

• Test result interpretation and bug detection
  • How to autodetect infrastructure failures, regressions/new bugs and

test bugs? How to handle continuous failures due to known bugs in both tests and kernel? What's your solution? Can people always trust the results they receive?

• Getting results to developers/maintainers
  • Aimed at kernel developers and maintainers, share your feedback and expectations.
  • How much data should be sent in the initial communication vs. a click

away in a dashboard? Do you want incremental emails with new results as they come in?

• What about adding checks to tested patches in Patchwork when patch

series are being tested?

• Providing enough data/script to reproduce the failure. What if special

HW is needed?

• Onboarding new kernel trees to test
  • Aimed at kernel developers and maintainers.
  • Which trees are most prone to bring in new problems? Which are the most critical ones? Do you want them to be tested? Which tests do you feel

are most beneficial for specific trees or in general?

• Security when testing untrusted patches
  • How do we merge, compile, and test patches that have untrusted code in

them and have not yet been reviewed? How do we avoid abuse of systems, information theft, or other damage?

• Check out the original patch that sparked the discussion at https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/862123/
• Avoiding effort duplication
  • Food for thought by GregKH
  • X different CI systems running ${TEST} on latest stable kernel on

x86_64 might look useless on the first look but is it? AMD/Intel CPUs, different network cards, different graphic drivers, compilers, kernel configuration... How do we distribute the workload to avoid doing the same thing all over again while still running in enough different environments to get the most coverage?

• Common hardware pools
  • Is this something people are interested in? Would be helpful

especially for HW that's hard to access, eg. ppc64le or s390x systems. Companies could also sing up to share their HW for testing to ensure kernel works with their products.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#404): https://groups.io/g/kernelci/message/404 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/31697554/924702 Group Owner: kernelci+owner@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/kernelci/unsub [ guillaume.tucker@gmail.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-