Hi Jakub,

On 6/26/24 08:50, Jakub Kicinski wrote:

On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 18:21:54 +0300 Aurelien Aptel wrote:

quoted

We have taken some time to review your documents and code and have had
several internal discussions regarding the CI topic. We truly appreciate
the benefits that a CI setup could bring. However, we believe that since
this feature primarily relies on nvme-tcp, it might achieve better
coverage and testing if integrated with blktest. Your design focuses on
the netdev layer, which we don't think is sufficient.

blktests/nvme is designed to test the entire nvme upstream
infrastructure including nvme-tcp that targets corner cases and bugs in
on-going development.  Chaitanya, Shinichiro, Daniel and other
developers are actively developing blktests and running these tests in
timely manner on latest branch in linux-nvme repo and for-next branch in
linux-block repo.

Again, we are open to provide NIC so that others can also test this
feature on upstream kernel on our NIC to facilitate easier testing
including distros, as long as they are testing this feature on upstream
kernel. In this way we don't have to replicate the nvme-block storage
stack infra/tools/tests in the framework that is focused on netdev
development and yet achieve good coverage, what do you think?

I'm not sure we're on the same page. The ask is to run the tests on
the netdev testing branch, at 12h cadence, and generate a simple JSON
file with results we can ingest into our reporting. Extra points to
reporting it to KCIDB. You mention "framework that is focused on
netdev", IDK what you mean.

just to clarify are you saying that you are want us to :-

1. Pull the latest changes from netdev current development branch
    every 12 hours.
2. Run blktests on the HEAD of that branch.
3. Gather those results into JASON file.
4. Post it publicly accessible to you.

I didn't understand the "ingest into our reporting part", can you
please clarify ?

-ck