[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Getting rid of the last bits of QEMU's 'ad-hoc CI' for merges
From: |
Thomas Huth |
Subject: |
Re: Getting rid of the last bits of QEMU's 'ad-hoc CI' for merges |
Date: |
Mon, 16 May 2022 16:30:31 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0 |
On 16/05/2022 14.43, Peter Maydell wrote:
We've made pretty good progress on transitioning our pre-merge CI
from running ad-hoc on machines the person doing the merge has access to
to all CI being driven by the Gitlab CI infrastructure. For this (7.1) release
cycle I think ideally we should try to get rid of the last few bits
of ad-hoc CI so that for 7.2 we are using only the gitlab CI. (This
will help in handing over merge request management to Stefan for 7.2.)
I think the last setups I have been using ad-hoc scripting for are:
(1) PPC64 big-endian Linux
(2) NetBSD (x86)
(3) OpenBSD (x86)
I think we can get away with just dropping ppc64be -- we have
coverage for it as a cross-compile setup, and hopefully the
s390x CI runner will catch the various "fails tests on big-endian host"
issues. (Alternatively if anybody has a ppc64be machine they'd like
to let us run a gitlab CI runner on, we could do that :-))
Ack, that should cover most scenarios already. (tcg backend is the only one
that would not get any coverage anymore)
For the BSDs, the ad-hoc CI is just running the tests/vm
"make vm-build-netbsd" etc. Is there some way we can get
coverage of this into the gitlab CI setup? (I think we
have FreeBSD via Cirrus CI, so I have not listed that one.)
A simple setup is already there, running NetBSD and OpenBSD via KVM on the
Cirrus-CI, see e.g.:
https://gitlab.com/thuth/qemu/-/jobs/2411943817#L1973
Caveats:
- The jobs are currently marked as "manual only" since the double
indirect setup (via cirrus-run and KVM) is not that reliable.
Also we can not run that many cirrus-ci jobs in parallel, so
we likely don't want to enable these by default.
- Compilation is not very fast, the jobs often run longer than
1h, though the --target-list is very short already.
Anyway, this should show that running NetBSD and OpenBSD is very well
possible in our CI - we just need a more powerful x86 host with KVM enabled
for this.
Thomas