On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 07:14:48AM -0700, shuang.he@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > Tested-By: PRC QA PRTS (Patch Regression Test System Contact: shuang.he@xxxxxxxxx) > -------------------------------------Summary------------------------------------- > Platform: baseline_drm_intel_nightly_pass_rate->patch_applied_pass_rate > BYT: pass/total=271/271->269/271 > PNV: pass/total=269/271->270/271 > ILK: pass/total=3/3->3/3 > IVB: pass/total=271/271->271/271 > SNB: pass/total=271/271->271/271 > HSW: pass/total=271/271->271/271 > BDW: pass/total=271/271->269/271 > -------------------------------------Detailed------------------------------------- > test_platform: test_suite, test_case, result_with_drm_intel_nightly->result_with_patch_applied > BYT: Intel_gpu_tools, igt_gem_concurrent_blit_gttX-bcs-gpu-read-after-write-forked, PASS->TIMEOUT > BYT: Intel_gpu_tools, igt_kms_setmode_invalid-clone-single-crtc, PASS->DMESG_WARN > PNV: Intel_gpu_tools, igt_gem_concurrent_blit_gtt-bcs-gpu-read-after-write-forked, TIMEOUT->PASS > BDW: Intel_gpu_tools, igt_gem_concurrent_blit_gtt-bcs-gpu-read-after-write-forked, PASS->TIMEOUT > BDW: Intel_gpu_tools, igt_gem_concurrent_blit_gttX-bcs-gpu-read-after-write-forked, PASS->TIMEOUT This smells a lot like flukes, since the patches really don't change functionality at all. Is there some way to filter out unstable testcases, or are these regressions real? In any case I've gone ahead and merged Ander's patches. -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
