[igt-dev] [i-g-t] Revert "syncobj_timeline: don't expect EINVAL for WAIT_UNSUBMITTED, | WAIT_AVAILABLE"

[Simon Ser]

On Monday, November 13th, 2023 at 11:06, Juha-Pekka Heikkila <juhapekka.heikkila at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 13.11.2023 12.02, Simon Ser wrote:
> 
> > On Monday, November 13th, 2023 at 10:59, Juha-Pekka Heikkila juhapekka.heikkila at gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > > On 13.11.2023 11.55, Simon Ser wrote:
> > > 
> > > > NACK. Please fix your docs/testplan/i915_tests.rst instead.
> > > 
> > > Let's do fixes outside of master branch where it doesn't bother others.
> > 
> > Sorry, but no. This commit fixes a bug already. The CI regression is
> > completely unrelated, and Intel-specific, I really don't understand why
> > it happens in the first place.
> > 
> > Is it by design that actual bug fixes break Intel CI?
> 
> As is this is blocking others totally unrelated to this. This patch
> never passed ci in the first place hence never should've been merged.
> Let's fix it somewhere else than on everyone's build machines independently.

If we want a quick fix, we can disable the broken Intel CI, instead of
reverting a completely correct bugfix.