On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 09:00:37AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > Quoting Petri Latvala (2018-08-16 08:56:27) > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 07:06:46AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > The pm_rpm module-reload exists to exercise a rpm wakeref leak, and > > > affects the random selection of tests run after it. Similar to the > > > normal module-reload tests, care must be taken in its execution to avoid > > > causing spurious failures elsewhere. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > tests/intel-ci/blacklist.txt | 1 + > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/tests/intel-ci/blacklist.txt b/tests/intel-ci/blacklist.txt > > > index c93554a37..88b2fe313 100644 > > > --- a/tests/intel-ci/blacklist.txt > > > +++ b/tests/intel-ci/blacklist.txt > > > @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ igt@drm_mm(@.*)? > > > # failures in tests run afterwards. > > > ############################################### > > > igt@drv_module_reload(@.*)? > > > +igt@pm_rpm@module-reload > > > > > > As we don't have machinery in place yet to run these reloading tests > > in shards in a controlled manner, should this be added to > > fast-feedback to not lose the coverage entirely? > > It already is in fast-feedback awaiting us landing the wakeref fix. :-p Blindness is bad, kids. Acked-by: Petri Latvala <petri.latvala@xxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
