[igt-dev] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for intel-ci: Unblock core_hotunplug at hot*bind* subtests (rev3)

[Vudum, Lakshminarayana]

I have just re-reported. Does it harm?

Lakshmi.

-----Original Message-----
From: Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik at linux.intel.com> 
Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 8:20 AM
To: Latvala, Petri <petri.latvala at intel.com>
Cc: igt-dev at lists.freedesktop.org; Vudum, Lakshminarayana <lakshminarayana.vudum at intel.com>
Subject: Re: [igt-dev] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for intel-ci: Unblock core_hotunplug at hot*bind* subtests (rev3)

On piątek, 7 maja 2021 17:14:14 CEST Petri Latvala wrote:
> On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 04:58:10PM +0200, Janusz Krzysztofik wrote:
> > On piątek, 7 maja 2021 16:39:37 CEST Patchwork wrote:
> > > == Series Details ==
> > > 
> > > Series: intel-ci: Unblock core_hotunplug at hot*bind* subtests (rev3)
> > > URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/89111/
> > > State : failure
> > > 
> > > == Summary ==
> > > 
> > > CI Bug Log - changes from IGT_6081_full -> IGTPW_5791_full 
> > > ====================================================
> > > 
> > > Summary
> > > -------
> > > 
> > >   **FAILURE**
> > > 
> > >   Serious unknown changes coming with IGTPW_5791_full absolutely 
> > > need to
be
> > >   verified manually.
> > >   
> > >   If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
> > >   introduced in IGTPW_5791_full, please notify your bug team to 
> > > allow
them
> > >   to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false 
> > > positives
in CI.
> > > 
> > >   External URL: 
> > > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGTPW_5791/
index.html
> > > 
> > > Possible new issues
> > > -------------------
> > > 
> > >   Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in
IGTPW_5791_full:
> > > 
> > > ### IGT changes ###
> > > 
> > > #### Possible regressions ####
> > > 
> > >   * igt at kms_cursor_crc@pipe-c-cursor-256x256-onscreen:
> > >     - shard-kbl:          [PASS][1] -> [FAIL][2]
> > >    [1]: 
> > > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGT_6081/shard-kbl6/
igt at kms_cursor_crc@pipe-c-cursor-256x256-onscreen.html
> > >    [2]: 
> > > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGTPW_5791/shard-kbl1/
igt at kms_cursor_crc@pipe-c-cursor-256x256-onscreen.html
> > >     - shard-apl:          NOTRUN -> [FAIL][3]
> > >    [3]: 
> > > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGTPW_5791/shard-apl8/
igt at kms_cursor_crc@pipe-c-cursor-256x256-onscreen.html
> > >     - shard-glk:          [PASS][4] -> [FAIL][5]
> > >    [4]: 
> > > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGT_6081/shard-glk1/
igt at kms_cursor_crc@pipe-c-cursor-256x256-onscreen.html
> > >    [5]: 
> > > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGTPW_5791/shard-glk6/
igt at kms_cursor_crc@pipe-c-cursor-256x256-onscreen.html
> > 
> > Even though core_hotunplug at hotrebind-lateclose test was executed
> > (successfully) in the same run before the above failures occurred, 
> > plenty
of 
> > other tests, including a few kms_cursor_crc subtests, completed 
> > without
any 
> > regressions in between.  Then, it seems hardly possible to me
core_hotunplug 
> > is responsible for those failures.
> 
> That looks about right.
> 
> Acked-by: Petri Latvala <petri.latvala at intel.com>
> 

Thanks Petri, however, please note no core_hotunplug hot*bind* subtests were executed on snb nor skl unfortunately, then let's hold with pushing this until we have reports from those machines, especially from snb which used to fail before.

Thanks,
Janusz