On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 01:18:15PM +0000, Shankar, Uma wrote: > > > >> > >> >-----Original Message----- > >> >From: Ville Syrjälä [mailto:ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > >> >Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2019 1:02 AM > >> >To: Shankar, Uma <uma.shankar@xxxxxxxxx> > >> >Cc: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> >Subject: Re: ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for Add HDR Metadata > >> >Parsing and handling in DRM layer (rev10) > >> > > >> >On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 08:59:37AM +0000, Shankar, Uma wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >-----Original Message----- > >> >> >From: Patchwork [mailto:patchwork@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > >> >> >Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 6:54 AM > >> >> >To: Shankar, Uma <uma.shankar@xxxxxxxxx> > >> >> >Cc: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> >> >Subject: ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for Add HDR Metadata Parsing and > >> >> >handling in DRM layer > >> >> >(rev10) > >> >> > > >> >> >== Series Details == > >> >> > > >> >> >Series: Add HDR Metadata Parsing and handling in DRM layer (rev10) > >> >> >URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/25091/ > >> >> >State : failure > >> >> > > >> >> >== Summary == > >> >> > > >> >> >CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_6081_full -> Patchwork_13017_full > >> >> >==================================================== > >> >> > > >> >> >Summary > >> >> >------- > >> >> > > >> >> > **FAILURE** > >> >> > > >> >> > Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_13017_full > >> >> > absolutely need to be verified manually. > >> >> > > >> >> > If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the > >> >> > changes introduced in Patchwork_13017_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_13017_full: > >> >> > > >> >> >### IGT changes ### > >> >> > > >> >> >#### Possible regressions #### > >> >> > > >> >> > * igt@gem_exec_suspend@basic-s3: > >> >> > - shard-iclb: [PASS][1] -> [SKIP][2] +43 similar issues > >> >> > [1]: > >> >> >https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_6081/shard- > >> >> >iclb6/igt@gem_exec_suspend@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> >> > [2]: > >> >> >https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_13017/shard- > >> >> >iclb5/igt@gem_exec_suspend@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> >> > > >> >> > * igt@kms_prop_blob@invalid-set-prop-any: > >> >> > - shard-iclb: [PASS][3] -> [FAIL][4] > >> >> > [3]: > >> >> >https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_6081/shard- > >> >> >iclb6/igt@kms_prop_blob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> >> > [4]: > >> >> >https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_13017/shard- > >> >> >iclb5/igt@kms_prop_blob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> Hi Martin, > >> >> These issues are unrelated to the changes made in this series. Can > >> >> you please have a look and confirm. > >> > > >> >The kms_prop fails at least are real. Probably due to the bogus > >> >function arguements to the replace_blob() thing I pointed out. > >> > >> The CI IGT have a clean PASS now. > > > >You mean it went from FAIL to PASS on its own? Why did that happen? > > It was giving a PASS on earlier version v9 with same changes. But on v10 it gave > this error. I was thinking it was re-run, on checking with Jani N he clarified that it > was re-reported. Did you even try to analyse the failures at all or just assumed they were bogus and asked for a rerun? I'm still in the dark as to why these failures were deemed to not be relevant. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
