Quoting Petri Latvala (2021-01-07 09:40:02) > On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 09:41:37AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Janusz Krzysztofik (2020-12-04 19:50:07) > > > We may still be interested in results of a test even if it has tainted > > > the kernel. On the other hand, we need to kill the test on taint if no > > > other means of killing it on a jam is active. > > > > > > If abort on both kernel taint or a timeout is requested, decrease all > > > potential timeouts significantly while the taint is detected instead of > > > aborting immediately. However, report the taint as the reason of the > > > abort if a timeout decreased by the taint expires. > > > > This has the nasty side effect of not stopping the test run after a > > kernel taint. Instead the next test inherits the tainted condition from > > the previous test and usually ends up being declared incomplete. > > > > False positives are frustrating. > > -Chris > > > Do you have a link to a test run where this happened? This patch > didn't change the between-tests abort checks. The taint is from the warnings in the penultimate test: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_9550/shard-skl7/igt_runner20.txt -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
