On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:29:13PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > 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? They are full-ppgtt failure. The failure is easily reproducible but sporadic. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
