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

[Janusz Krzysztofik]

Hi Lakshmi,

On piątek, 7 maja 2021 17:37:38 CEST Vudum, Lakshminarayana wrote:
> I have just re-reported. Does it harm?

No, it doesn't.  But tests in scope of the change were not executed again on 
problematic machines, then I have to resubmit later anyway.

Thanks,
Janusz

> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>