[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: warning for series starting with [1/2] drm/i915: Pre-calculate engine context size

[Chris Wilson]

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:43:18PM +0000, Saarinen, Jani wrote:
> Hi, 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joonas Lahtinen [mailto:joonas.lahtinen at linux.intel.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 3:36 PM
> > To: Saarinen, Jani <jani.saarinen at intel.com>; intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> > Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: warning for series starting with [1/2]
> > drm/i915: Pre-calculate engine context size
> > 
> > On ke, 2017-04-26 at 10:43 +0000, Saarinen, Jani wrote:
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > Subject: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: warning for series starting with [1/2]
> > drm/i915:
> > > > Pre-calculate engine context size
> > > >
> > > > == Series Details ==
> > > >
> > > > Series: series starting with [1/2] drm/i915: Pre-calculate engine
> > > > context size URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/23559/
> > > > State : warning
> > > >
> > > > == Summary ==
> > > >
> > > > Series 23559v1 Series without cover letter
> > > > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/23559/revisions/1/m
> > > > box/
> > > >
> > >
> > > How about trybot first?
> > 
> > What exactly is the point of running CI on intel-gfx traffic if everything is
> > supposed to be sent to trybot first? Sending trivial series to trybot first would
> > double the already untolerable latency of the system. intel-gfx is supposed to be
> Well I am thinking that first most obvious failures are caught by trybot and when 
> passing there then sending for review, this is what eg. Chris is doing a lot. 
> So that trybot serves developers pre-pre-criteria. 
> But agree there is latency is there are work in the queue but not if drm, dif, dinf and pw and clean,
> then is just matter of 10+ minutes. 
> 
> > a place to discuss the patches among the developers, or you think we should
> > have intel-gfx-dev for that and everything but ready-to-merge series are sent
> > there?
> Well it is up to developers to decide, just saying that if patches are totally bogus, maybe test first 
> not on the list but try-bot list ;)

Don't forget that Joonas also wanted to validate the design choice,
which is something we want to do as early as possible as well. Nearly
complete code is fine for sampling on whether the entire approach is
heading in the right direction. And CI results are useful here as well,
they catch oversights they may escape us mere humans.
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre