> > > > == 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 ? My understanding, yes, we are running on that order. Adding comment, no I think no, Petri, Tomi? > -Chris > > -- > Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre Jani Saarinen Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
