Thomas Huth <[email protected]> writes:
> On 26/01/2023 15.41, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 at 14:35, Daniel P. Berrangé <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I'm confident we can rationalize our jobs, especially the cross >>> compilation ones. >>> >>> For each non-x86 arch we've got two sets of jobs, one for system >>> emulators and one for user emulators. >>> >>> IMHO the most interesting part of non-x86 testing is the TCG >>> host target. We don't need 2 jobs to cover that, either system >>> or user emulators would cover TCG build / test. Most of the rest >>> of code is not heavily host arch dependant. >> I'm not super enthusiastic about cutting this down. >> I find the non-x86 testing is the most interesting part >> of the CI -- most patch submitters and system submaintainers >> have already done local compile-and-build with the common >> x86_64 recent-distro target, so those parts pretty much >> always succeed. The benefit of the auto CI is in keeping >> the platforms that aren't so widely used by developers >> working (both different-host-arch and different-OS). > > I mostly agree. Question is whether we really need all of them, e.g. > do we really need both, the *-armel and the *-armhf jobs for both, the > -user and the -system part? Or would it be still ok to e.g. only have > a -armel-user and a -armhf-system job and drop the other two? I suspect just the armhf target is good enough but as you say later... > I think there are also other possibilities where we could cut down CI > minutes, e.g.: > > - Avoid that some of the -softmmu targets get build multiple > times > > - Re-arrange the Avocodo jobs: We should maybe rather sort them > by target system instead of host distro to avoid that some > targets get tested twice here. We can use tags to select groups of avocado tests I think. > - Do we really need Linux-based clang jobs if we test Clang > compilation with macOS and FreeBSD, too? Depends - is there any version drift between them? > - Would it be OK to merge the merge the build-without-default- > devices and build-without-default-features jobs? Sure > > And after all, I'd like to raise one question again: Could we finally > stop supporting 32-bit hosts? ... that would really help to get rid of > both, some CI minutes and some maintainer burden. I'm totally down for that. Most distros have put 32 bit onto life support haven't they? > > Thomas -- Alex Bennée Virtualisation Tech Lead @ Linaro
