On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 06:47:24PM +0000, Saarinen, Jani wrote: > > > == Series Details == > > > > > > Series: drm/i915: Allocate intel_engine_cs structure only for the enabled > > engines (rev3) > > > URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/13435/ > > > State : warning > > > > > > == Summary == > > > > > > Series 13435v3 drm/i915: Allocate intel_engine_cs structure only for > > > the enabled engines > > > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/13435/revisions/3/mbo > > > x/ > > > > > > Test vgem_basic: > > > Subgroup unload: > > > pass -> SKIP (fi-skl-6260u) > > > pass -> SKIP (fi-skl-6700hq) > > > skip -> PASS (fi-skl-6700k) > > > > > Checked with Chris about the above failure. > > He said that the above unload failure for vgem module can't be attributed to > > the patch, most likely a CI framework issue. > Yes, this test is still behaving badly especially with SKL systems but also with bdw and kbl. Are the test run in the order defined by fast-feedback.testlist ? I intended the vgem unload test to be run as the first vgem testcase to minimise the chance of a stray module leak. Can we define the order within CI? Can we put comments into fast-feedback.testlist ? -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
