>-----Original Message----- >From: Ville Syrjälä [mailto:ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] >Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 6:54 PM >To: Shankar, Uma <uma.shankar@xxxxxxxxx> >Cc: Peres, Martin <martin.peres@xxxxxxxxx>; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: Re: ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for Add HDR Metadata Parsing and handling >in DRM layer (rev10) > >On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 01:17:05PM +0000, Shankar, Uma wrote: >> >> >> >-----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/shar >> >>>>>>>> d- 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/shar >> >>>>>>>> d- 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. > >I don't care. There was a failure in a test that is actually relevant for the code being >changed, so it should have been analyzed and the results of that analysis shared on >the list. Without that I'm just going to assume there is a potential bug in the new code >and not merge the thing. Since this came as an issue which didn't reproduced locally and also older versions of the series also worked, I asked for a re-run to be sure (or if it's already known issue happening due to something which people are already aware of). Also I never doubted that something is wrong in blob handing since it was done like that from the beginning of this series. I will be more careful going forward to add these details and explanations while asking for a re-run. Regards, Uma Shankar >-- >Ville Syrjälä >Intel _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
