[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: remove the unnecessary block around
Daniel Vetter
daniel at ffwll.ch
Fri Nov 14 11:10:00 CET 2014
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:03:26PM -0800, shuang.he at intel.com wrote:
> Tested-By: PRC QA PRTS (Patch Regression Test System Contact: shuang.he at intel.com)
> -------------------------------------Summary-------------------------------------
> Platform: baseline_drm_intel_nightly_pass_rate->patch_applied_pass_rate
> BYT: pass/total=291/291->290/291
> PNV: pass/total=356/356->356/356
> ILK: pass/total=372/372->371/372
> IVB: pass/total=545/546->545/546
> SNB: pass/total=380/380->378/380
> HSW: pass/total=579/579->579/579
> BDW: pass/total=434/435->434/435
> -------------------------------------Detailed-------------------------------------
> test_platform: test_suite, test_case, result_with_drm_intel_nightly(count, machine_id...)...->result_with_patch_applied(count, machine_id)...
> BYT: Intel_gpu_tools, igt_kms_setmode_invalid-clone-single-crtc, TIMEOUT(6, M36M31)PASS(1, M31) -> TIMEOUT(1, M36)PASS(3, M36)
> ILK: Intel_gpu_tools, igt_kms_setmode_invalid-clone-single-crtc, FAIL(2, M26)DMESG_FAIL(1, M26)TIMEOUT(6, M37M6)PASS(1, M26) -> TIMEOUT(1, M6)PASS(3, M6)
> IVB: Intel_gpu_tools, igt_gem_bad_reloc_negative-reloc, NSPT(3, M21M34)PASS(4, M34M21) -> NSPT(1, M21)PASS(3, M21)
> IVB: Intel_gpu_tools, igt_kms_setmode_invalid-clone-single-crtc, TIMEOUT(6, M34M21)PASS(1, M21) -> TIMEOUT(1, M21)PASS(3, M21)
> SNB: Intel_gpu_tools, igt_kms_mmio_vs_cs_flip_setcrtc_vs_cs_flip, PASS(4, M35M22) -> DMESG_WARN(1, M22)PASS(3, M22)
> SNB: Intel_gpu_tools, igt_kms_setmode_invalid-clone-single-crtc, TIMEOUT(6, M35M22)PASS(1, M35) -> TIMEOUT(1, M22)PASS(3, M22)
> BDW: Intel_gpu_tools, igt_gem_reset_stats_ban-bsd, DMESG_WARN(1, M28)PASS(6, M42M30) -> PASS(4, M30)
> BDW: Intel_gpu_tools, igt_kms_setmode_invalid-clone-single-crtc, TIMEOUT(6, M42M30)PASS(1, M28) -> TIMEOUT(1, M30)PASS(3, M30)
Damien already raised this in another patch, but this one here is another
case where the patch only changes whitespace really, but somehow PRTS
detects lots of changes. All tests really look funky and I have no idea
what exaclty might cause these test instabilities.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list