[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: warning for drm/i915: Allocate intel_engine_cs structure only for the enabled engines (rev3)

[Saarinen, Jani]

> > > > == Series Details ==
> > > >
> > > > Series: drm/i915: Allocate intel_engine_cs structure only for the
> > > > enabled
> > > engines (rev3)
> > > > URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/13435/
> > > > State : warning
> > > >
> > > > == Summary ==
> > > >
> > > > Series 13435v3 drm/i915: Allocate intel_engine_cs structure only
> > > > for the enabled engines
> > > > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/13435/revisions/3
> > > > /mbo
> > > > x/
> > > >
> > > > Test vgem_basic:
> > > >         Subgroup unload:
> > > >                 pass       -> SKIP       (fi-skl-6260u)
> > > >                 pass       -> SKIP       (fi-skl-6700hq)
> > > >                 skip       -> PASS       (fi-skl-6700k)
> > > >
> > > Checked with Chris about the above failure.
> > > He said that the above unload failure for vgem module can't be
> > > attributed to the patch, most likely a CI framework issue.
> > Yes, this test is still behaving badly especially with SKL systems but also with
> bdw and kbl.
> 
> Are the test run in the order defined by fast-feedback.testlist ?
> I intended the vgem unload test to be run as the first vgem testcase to 
> minimise the chance of a stray module leak. Can we define the order within
> CI? Can we put comments into fast-feedback.testlist ?
My understanding, yes, we are running on that order.
Adding comment, no I think no, Petri, Tomi?

> -Chris
> 
> --
> Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre



Jani Saarinen
Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo