On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 07:38:33PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 08:07:35PM -0000, Patchwork wrote: > > == Series Details == > > > > Series: series starting with [1/4] drm/i915: Enable transition watermarks for glk > > URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/56025/ > > State : failure > > > > == Summary == > > > > CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_5518_full -> Patchwork_12103_full > > ==================================================== > > > > Summary > > ------- > > > > **FAILURE** > > > > Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_12103_full absolutely need to be > > verified manually. > > > > If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes > > introduced in Patchwork_12103_full, please notify your bug team to allow them > > to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives in CI. > > > > > > > > Possible new issues > > ------------------- > > > > Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in Patchwork_12103_full: > > > > ### IGT changes ### > > > > #### Possible regressions #### > > > > * igt@kms_cursor_legacy@2x-cursor-vs-flip-legacy: > > - shard-glk: PASS -> FAIL +2 > > (kms_cursor_legacy:2984) CRITICAL: Test assertion failure function two_screens_cursor_vs_flip, file ../tests/kms_cursor_legacy.c:1207: > (kms_cursor_legacy:2984) CRITICAL: Failed assertion: shared[child] > vrefresh[child]*target[child] / 2 > (kms_cursor_legacy:2984) CRITICAL: completed 382 cursor updated in a period of 30 flips, we expect to complete approximately 3840 updates, with the threshold set at 1920 > Subtest 2x-cursor-vs-flip-legacy failed. > > 2x-cursor-vs-flip-atomic and 2x-long-cursor-vs-flip-atomic also flipped > to fail but that fact is not reflected here for some reason. It is, but obscurely. It's the "+2". Two more of the similar failure. -- Petri Latvala _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
