> -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Vetter [mailto:daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Daniel > Vetter > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 12:57 PM > To: Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>; Joonas Lahtinen > <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; > Lofstedt, Marta <marta.lofstedt@xxxxxxxxx>; Martin Peres > <martin.peres@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH i-g-t] tests/gem_eio: Skip in-flight-suspend on snb > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:51:51AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > CI gets upset about it resulting in an incomplete, let's skip it until > > that's fixed to avoid havoc in the CI farm. Of course this should/will > > be reverted as soon as we have a fix (similar to how we dealt with the > > snb-dies-in-blt-hangs issue). > > > > Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: "Lofstedt, Marta" <marta.lofstedt@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Martin Peres <martin.peres@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > References: > > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/igt@gem_eio@in-flight-suspend > > .html > > References: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103289 > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> > > For more context, since I forgot to add: I'm definitely not advertising for > abusing igt_skip to handle problematic testcases in general. What makes this > special here is the combo of > - new testcase > - old machine where we don't have priority to fix things > > Hence why I think it'll make sense to treat this as a feature-like thing, where > we simply skip if stuff doesn't work/isn't exposed on older platforms and > shrug it off. And once someone does a free time project to fix it up, we can > then remove the skip. > > I hope that explains a bit the reasoning from my behind using skip here. I am not buying this. Could you define which old machines that we are not going to care about to find out that we are having this real issue? I also don't understand why new test-cases should be treated differently compare to the old bad behaving ones we already have. /Marta > > The other bit is that if/once Maarten figured out what's wrong with > watermarks, we should be able to enable shard-snb reporting in CI results, > which would be really great. Except we really can't have tests that > incomplete, because they victimize too much else and so would need to > blacklist until fixed one way or the other anyways. > -Daniel > > > --- > > tests/gem_eio.c | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/tests/gem_eio.c b/tests/gem_eio.c index > > 899cb62728e3..28375e208232 100644 > > --- a/tests/gem_eio.c > > +++ b/tests/gem_eio.c > > @@ -218,6 +218,9 @@ static void test_inflight_suspend(int fd) > > igt_require(gem_has_exec_fence(fd)); > > igt_require(i915_reset_control(false)); > > > > + igt_skip_on_f(IS_SANDYBRIDGE(intel_get_drm_devid(fd)), > > + "random incompletes in CI with this test\n"); > > + > > memset(obj, 0, sizeof(obj)); > > obj[0].flags = EXEC_OBJECT_WRITE; > > obj[1].handle = gem_create(fd, 4096); > > -- > > 2.15.0.rc1 > > > > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
