[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t v3 1/1] gitlab-ci: add build and tests for MIPS

[Arkadiusz Hiler]

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 04:14:53PM +0300, Ser, Simon wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-06-27 at 11:02 +0100, Guillaume Tucker wrote:
> > On 27/06/2019 08:02, Ser, Simon wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2019-06-25 at 14:08 +0100, Guillaume Tucker wrote:
> > > > On 18/06/2019 13:42, Guillaume Tucker wrote:
> > > > > Add Docker image and Gitlab CI steps to run builds and tests for
> > > > > the
> > > > > MIPS architecture using Debian Stretch with backports.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Guillaume Tucker <guillaume.tucker at collabora.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > 
> > > > > Notes:
> > > > >     v2: use stretch-backports and require libatomic1
> > > > >     v3: add mips ci tests and require Debian libatomic1 for mips
> > > > 
> > > > The series to use portable atomics functions was merged today, so
> > > > I think this one should now be good to go as well.  It applies
> > > > cleanly on top of the current master branch and the Gitlab CI
> > > > pipeline passed:
> > > > 
> > > >   
> > > > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/gtucker/igt-gpu-tools/pipelines/44704
> > > > 
> > > > Please let me know if you want me to resubmit it to get another
> > > > Patchwork CI run or if anything else needs to be done.
> > > 
> > > LGTM!
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Simon Ser <simon.ser at intel.com>
> > > 
> > > And pushed:
> > > 
> > > To gitlab.freedesktop.org:drm/igt-gpu-tools.git
> > >    15ad66453441..439a9f5d615f  master -> master
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > Err, however it looks like you pushed the v2 which had only
> > builds rather than this v3 which does builds and tests:
> > 
> >   439a9f5d615f gitlab-ci: add build for MIPS
> > 
> > I've made another patch with the difference between v2 and v3 and
> > pushed it to my branch:
> > 
> >   https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/gtucker/igt-gpu-tools/commit/9693e28871f27efb7340ad29d54de4be7b5461a9
> > 
> > I'll wait for the Gitlab CI pipeline to complete and then I guess
> > I should send that to the mailing list.
> 
> Bleh, I'm sorry about this! It seems like patchwork got confused.
> 
> I'll gladly review and merge a fix, feel free to Cc me :)

The title of the first patch has changed, so patchwork treats it as a
separate series instead of a revision to existing one.

It's safer to take the patchwork links (both to series and the mbox)
from the CI results instead of trying to browse for them yourself.