[Bug 94294] New: [BAT SNB BSW] basic-flip-vs-wf_vblank timestamp vs. seq counter difference

[bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94294

            Bug ID: 94294
           Summary: [BAT SNB BSW] basic-flip-vs-wf_vblank timestamp vs.
                    seq counter difference
           Product: DRI
           Version: DRI git
          Hardware: x86-64 (AMD64)
                OS: Linux (All)
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: medium
         Component: DRM/Intel
          Assignee: intel-gfx-bugs at lists.freedesktop.org
          Reporter: ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com
        QA Contact: intel-gfx-bugs at lists.freedesktop.org
                CC: intel-gfx-bugs at lists.freedesktop.org

We appear to sometimes inconsistent vblank timestamps vs. seq numbers. This
could be due to the race in the vblank code I tried to fix [1] long time ago,
but the patch got held hostage due to Daniel's desire to use seqlocks. But
since no one volunteered to do the work, here we are.

[1] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2015-September/090288.html

/archive/results/CI_IGT_test/CI_DRM_1072/bsw-nuc-2/html/bsw-nuc-2 at CI_DRM_1072@1/igt at kms_flip@basic-flip-vs-wf_vblank.html
/archive/results/CI_IGT_test/CI_DRM_1084/snb-x220t/html/snb-x220t at CI_DRM_1084@1/igt at kms_flip@basic-flip-vs-wf_vblank.html

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx-bugs/attachments/20160225/5a41a8ee/attachment.html>