On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:43:30 -0700 > Ben Widawsky <benjamin.widawsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Hi Wendy. Daniel has reverted your original commit here: >> commit 35554a1bcaaea55c1cfa88c0176c58d2fb3b8013 >> Author: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> >> Date: Tue Jun 10 11:05:16 2014 +0200 >> >> Revert "Add rc6_residency_counter subtest" >> >> Note that I absolutely do not agree with the decision to revert your >> patch as was stated in the commit message. I am not sure how Daniel got >> the impression that I thought this was "in order." >> >> Can you please resubmit the patch based on the latest intel-gpu-tools? > > I also made that clear when Daniel and I discussed it. I simply don't > understand why a revert was necessary, especially given that we had an > incremental patch to address many of the comments. Was the test > breaking i-g-t runs (i.e. preventing tests from running)? Was it > somehow crashing and causing false reports? Ok, I've reverted the revert since people are too unhappy with it. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
