[openib-general] Latest build test results

[Nishanth Aravamudan]

On 11.10.2005 [21:27:15 -0400], Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> Hi Nish,
> 
> On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 17:45, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 07.10.2005 [09:48:56 -0400], Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 15:26, Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 15:20, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > > > On 06.10.2005 [13:25:35 -0400], Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 13:11, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > > > > > On 06.10.2005 [19:40:40 +0300], Dan Bar Dov wrote:
> > > > > > > > I've fixed the 2.6.14-rc3 compilation warnings with iSER on x86 in version 3682.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Great! Thanks.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I'm re-running the tests (due to a subtle flaw in my PATH, my cronjobs
> > > > > > > weren't running) now and will post the latest results.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > You might also want to apply 
> > > > > > https://openib.org/svn/gen2/trunk/src/linux-kernel/patches/linux-2.6.14-rc3-fib-frontend.diff
> > > > > > to get rid of the AT and SDP warnings.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This patch does remove the warning regarding undefined symbols during
> > > > > modpost, but does not remove the warnings
> > > > > 
> > > > > drivers/infiniband/core/at.c:1547: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type
> > > > > 
> > > > > drivers/infiniband/ulp/sdp/sdp_link.c:752: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type
> > > > 
> > > > Right. Roland reported a change to struct packet_type in 2.6.14. I'll
> > > > work on a patch for this too. Thanks.
> > > 
> > > Can you try this patch for the above 2 warnings ? If it works, I check
> > > it into the patches directory. Thanks.
> > > 
> > > -- Hal
> > > 
> > > Update arp_recv functions to latest 2.6.14 netdevice.h API for struct
> > > packet_type
> > 
> > Sorry for the delay, I haven't yet had time to test the patches :/ I'll
> > try to get to it tonight or tomorrow.
> > 
> > Is there anyway you can send me patches against the kernel tree as
> > opposed to the svn repo? It makes my side of things *a lot* easier, as
> > right now I have to take your patch against svn and either hand-edit or
> > patch my checkout and then diff against the current kernel tree.
> 
> Since you were reporting iSER, AT, and SDP compile warnings/errors,
> aren't you using the latest OpenIB svn tree with 2.6.14-rc3 ?

Yes; but you have to understand that the automated build system I have
access to 1) does not have external internet access (i.e., to the svn
tree) and 2) only builds kernels unless I manually send commands to the
terminal.

So, the way I'm doing things is:

Send in 4 jobs for mainline (x86 and ppc64 with =y and =m) and then
generate a patch of the latest svn tree against the current -git release
(a patch to the kernel) and send it in as a parameter to my builds to
test the latest svn tree. This leads to another 4 jobs (x86 and ppc64
with =y and =m).

I'm *only* doing kernel build testing right now.

> Which patches are you referring to ? Was it the fib_frontend.c one ?
> Not sure why they would need any manual fixup. At least that one was
> pretty straightforward.

In the sense that I have to edit them to kernel relative paths, not in
the content of the patch. To test any patch in the system I have access
to, it needs to be a normal kernel patch (-p1 applicable to the base
tree).

Going through and manually applying patches to the svn tree and then
regenerating the diff completely defeats the purpose of automated
compilation testing.

> 2.6.14-rc4 is out now.

Yes, I know.

Thanks,
Nish