Hi. > -----Original Message----- > From: Intel-gfx <intel-gfx-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of > Gustavo Sousa > Sent: Friday, 4 October 2024 14.43 > To: Nikula, Jani <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx>; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>; i915-ci-infra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for Miscelaneous fixes for display tracepoints > (rev2) > > Quoting Jani Nikula (2024-10-04 08:33:20-03:00) > >On Fri, 04 Oct 2024, Gustavo Sousa <gustavo.sousa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Quoting Patchwork (2024-09-26 16:28:07-03:00) > >>>#### Possible regressions #### > >>> > >>> * igt@i915_selftest@live: > >>> - bat-mtlp-6: [PASS][1] -> [ABORT][2] +1 other test abort > >>> [1]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_15449/bat-mtlp- > 6/igt@i915_selftest@xxxxxxxxx > >>> [2]: > >>> https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_137978v2/bat-mtlp > >>> -6/igt@i915_selftest@xxxxxxxxx > >> > >> This does not seem related to this series, which is only about > >> tracepoints. > >> > >> Jani or Rodrigo, ack to merge this series without triggering a new CI > >> cycle? I don't believe CI exercises tests that enable tracepoints. Or > >> does it? > > > >BAT *must* pass before merging, no exceptions. > > Okay. Thanks. See original BAT results mail it says " If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes > introduced in Patchwork_137978v2, please notify your bug team > (I915-ci-infra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) to allow them to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives in CI." > > -- > Gustavo Sousa > > > > >Full shard run failures can be looked over when it's clear the series > >didn't cause the failures. > > > > > >BR, > >Jani. > > > > > >-- > >Jani Nikula, Intel
