>-----Original Message----- >From: Peres, Martin >Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 6:39 PM >To: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 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 17/05/2019 16:04, Ville Syrjälä wrote: >> 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. >> > >This is completely unrelated to this series. We have a bug for this issue already, so no >worries there. > >However, thanks for caring so much about this. I should have clarified what I was >doing... Hi Ville, We had a PASS on earlier versions of the series with same change and even locally ./tests/kms_prop_blob gave SUCCESS for all subtests. So I reported this to Martin and Jani, and Martin helped to fix this, wrt getting reported correctly. Regards, Uma Shankar _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
