CI jobs for OpenRNG-OpenBLAS-Arm build #2972
Conversation
* Modified the build script to enable cross compile * Fixed static link build with openrng backend * Extended exclude list for openrng build Signed-off-by: Dhanus M Lal <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Dhanus M Lal <[email protected]>
DhanusML
requested review from
Alexsandruss,
samir-nasibli,
Alexandr-Solovev,
napetrov,
homksei,
ahuber21 and
ethanglaser
as code owners
|
@DhanusML is there a way to integrate the OpenRNG testing into another job or replace another? we are becoming very resource constrained in azure pipelines and github actions. |
|
@DhanusML @rakshithgb-fujitsu - with uxlorg upgraded to Enterprise tire we now can use arm github runners. Might be worth moving pipeline to those systems for now? |
|
i think we could first integrate CI run on real HW and then enable this PR on new systems - #3100 |
|
@DhanusML the ARM runners PR seems to be merged. Would you consider moving testing there? |
Sure @syakov-intel @napetrov sure we'll move tests to Arm runners. Thanks |
Changes made to service_openrng.h by commit ed04659 breaks the build because the header service_stat_rng_ref.h is not included and the macros present in this file are not compatible with the openrng interface. Signed-off-by: Dhanus M Lal <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Dhanus M Lal <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Dhanus M Lal <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Dhanus M Lal <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Dhanus M Lal <[email protected]>
|
Sorry for the delayed response. I have moved openrng backend testing to arm github runners. Please review. |
napetrov
requested review from
avolkov-intel,
KateBlueSky,
icfaust and
david-cortes-intel
as code owners
|
@DhanusML I see that OpenRNG is not distributed through conda-forge. It looks like you guys have been involved with its development - would it be possible to upload it to conda-forge in the future? It would make it easier later on to build oneDAL from source using regular conda infrastructure. |
|
/intelci: run |
Got rid of unnecessary attributes in class BaseRNG. Signed-off-by: Dhanus M Lal <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Dhanus M Lal <[email protected]>
|
|
||
| # Faster builds where possible. Fix version of CMake and Ninja. | ||
| # Note: This will create a github actions cache | ||
| - name: Get CMake and Ninja |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could this reuse the same entries from other CI jobs that pull cmake?
david-cortes-intel
merged commit d535c17
into
uxlfoundation:main
* Added ci jobs for openrng openblas arm build * Modified the build script to enable cross compile * Fixed static link build with openrng backend * Extended exclude list for openrng build Signed-off-by: Dhanus M Lal <[email protected]> * excluded more examples Signed-off-by: Dhanus M Lal <[email protected]> * revert: externals/service_openrng.h Changes made to service_openrng.h by commit ed04659 breaks the build because the header service_stat_rng_ref.h is not included and the macros present in this file are not compatible with the openrng interface. Signed-off-by: Dhanus M Lal <[email protected]> * CI: moved openrng jobs to github workflows Signed-off-by: Dhanus M Lal <[email protected]> * CI testing: always pass daal/cpp tests Signed-off-by: Dhanus M Lal <[email protected]> * CI arm64-openrng-openblas: set oneapi/cpp examples to always pass Signed-off-by: Dhanus M Lal <[email protected]> * typo: changed job name; added comments Signed-off-by: Dhanus M Lal <[email protected]> * refactor: address review comments Got rid of unnecessary attributes in class BaseRNG. Signed-off-by: Dhanus M Lal <[email protected]> * documentation: address review comments Signed-off-by: Dhanus M Lal <[email protected]> --------- Signed-off-by: Dhanus M Lal <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Nikolay Petrov <[email protected]>
Description
PR should start as a draft, then move to ready for review state after CI is passed and all applicable checkboxes are closed.
This approach ensures that reviewers don't spend extra time asking for regular requirements.
You can remove a checkbox as not applicable only if it doesn't relate to this PR in any way.
For example, PR with docs update doesn't require checkboxes for performance while PR with any change in actual code should have checkboxes and justify how this code change is expected to affect performance (or justification should be self-evident).
Checklist to comply with before moving PR from draft:
PR completeness and readability
Testing