On 03/11/17 12:43, Petri Latvala wrote:
On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 10:18:32AM +0200, Tomi Sarvela wrote:
On 02/11/17 19:08, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 04:34:26PM -0000, Patchwork wrote:
== Series Details ==
Series: series starting with [1/3] drm/i915: Check if the stolen memory "reserved" area is enabled or not
URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/33060/
State : warning
== Summary ==
Test kms_busy:
Subgroup extended-modeset-hang-oldfb-with-reset-render-A:
dmesg-warn -> PASS (shard-hsw)
Subgroup extended-modeset-hang-newfb-with-reset-render-B:
pass -> DMESG-WARN (shard-hsw)
Hmm. The warn was there already AFAICS. I wonder why this is claiming
things were passing?
The sharded result for the run is 'warning'. What do you mean?
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_6930/shards.html
The comparison is done to CI_DRM_3309 according to this, and
kms_busy@extended-modeset-hang-newfb-with-reset-render-B was
dmesg-warn there. Why is the above diff showing pass -> DMESG-WARN?
Found the reason: some of the shards have been run twice for CI_DRM_3309
(my mistake, probably). This has the unintended effect on visualization
/ comparison which create independently: results depends on loading
order if there's flip-flops, and differences might show up.
I'll remove duplicate shards and re-run the html.
Tomi
--
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
