On Fri, 16 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 07:29:59AM +0000, Saarinen, Jani wrote: >> > == Series Details == >> > >> > Series: drm/i915: relax uncritical udelay_range() settings >> > URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/16900/ >> > State : failure >> > >> > == Summary == >> > >> > Series 16900v1 drm/i915: relax uncritical udelay_range() settings >> > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/16900/revisions/1/mbox/ >> > >> > Test gem_ringfill: >> > Subgroup basic-default-hang: >> > pass -> INCOMPLETE (fi-hsw-4770) >> running: igt/gem_ringfill/basic-default-hang >> [117/247] skip: 8, pass: 109 / >> Build timed out (after 17 minutes). Marking the build as aborted. >> > This might be a conflict caused by the initial patch which was discssed > and then after agreeing that rather than moving to udelay() usleep:range > with som adjustments would be the right way to go. > are both patches queued now ? > > I think I caused the problem by changing the subject line of the patch > while adding a V2 - because the original subject line was no longer corrct > (it noted udely) - the V2 patch is marked as "rev 1" in patchwork though. > > not quite clear - anyway sorry if I made some sort of a mess here > the patch applies cleanly on next-20161216. Nah, some other hickup in CI on a machine that's not affected by your change. Pushed to drm-intel-next-queued, thanks for the patch. BR, Jani. > > thx! > hofrat > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
