On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 11:46:09AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > Flaky tests can be very difficult to reproduce after the facts, which > will make it even harder to ever fix. > > Let's document the metadata we agreed on to provide more context to > anyone trying to address these fixes. > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/CAPj87rPbJ1V1-R7WMTHkDat2A4nwSd61Df9mdGH2PR=ZzxaU=Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx> Not that my opinion matters much since I'm really not involved in the details, and no opinion on the specific format and all that, but this sounds like a very good idea too me. Acked-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> Cheers, Sima > --- > Documentation/gpu/automated_testing.rst | 13 +++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/automated_testing.rst b/Documentation/gpu/automated_testing.rst > index 469b6fb65c30..2dd0e221c2c3 100644 > --- a/Documentation/gpu/automated_testing.rst > +++ b/Documentation/gpu/automated_testing.rst > @@ -67,6 +67,19 @@ Lists the tests that for a given driver on a specific hardware revision are > known to behave unreliably. These tests won't cause a job to fail regardless of > the result. They will still be run. > > +Each new flake entry must be associated with a link to a bug report to > +the author of the affected driver, the board name or Device Tree name of > +the board, the first kernel version affected, and an approximation of > +the failure rate. > + > +They should be provided under the following format:: > + > + # Bug Report: $LORE_OR_PATCHWORK_URL > + # Board Name: broken-board.dtb > + # Version: 6.6-rc1 > + # Failure Rate: 100 > + flaky-test > + > drivers/gpu/drm/ci/${DRIVER_NAME}-${HW_REVISION}-skips.txt > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > 2.41.0 > -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
