Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Quoting Mika Kuoppala (2017-11-10 12:20:55) >> Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > Quoting Mika Kuoppala (2017-11-10 11:53:47) >> >> We have a problem of distinguishing intended hangs >> >> submitted by igt during CI/bat and hangs that are nonintended >> >> happening in close proximity. >> > >> > Do we? I haven't had that problem in distinguishing them. >> >> Piglit can't tell them apart afaik. Due to info level. > > Piglit? If the test passes, it doesn't matter how the kernel got there, > the user behaviour is as expected. If the test wants to assert that it > didn't hang, it can do that. Through reset counts? At starters we could assert in framework that all tests that do not call igt_hang() expect reset count to stay the same between entry/exit. I see the logic behind that user behaviour is as expected. Would be good that CI folks chime in here and detail how they want things to work. -Mika _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
