[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t] intel-ci: Exclude pm_rpm module-reload from full testing
Chris Wilson
chris at chris-wilson.co.uk
Thu Aug 16 09:03:25 UTC 2018
Quoting Petri Latvala (2018-08-16 09:43:10)
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 09:00:37AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Petri Latvala (2018-08-16 08:56:27)
> > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 07:06:46AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > The pm_rpm module-reload exists to exercise a rpm wakeref leak, and
> > > > affects the random selection of tests run after it. Similar to the
> > > > normal module-reload tests, care must be taken in its execution to avoid
> > > > causing spurious failures elsewhere.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > > > ---
> > > > tests/intel-ci/blacklist.txt | 1 +
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/tests/intel-ci/blacklist.txt b/tests/intel-ci/blacklist.txt
> > > > index c93554a37..88b2fe313 100644
> > > > --- a/tests/intel-ci/blacklist.txt
> > > > +++ b/tests/intel-ci/blacklist.txt
> > > > @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ igt at drm_mm(@.*)?
> > > > # failures in tests run afterwards.
> > > > ###############################################
> > > > igt at drv_module_reload(@.*)?
> > > > +igt at pm_rpm@module-reload
> > >
> > >
> > > As we don't have machinery in place yet to run these reloading tests
> > > in shards in a controlled manner, should this be added to
> > > fast-feedback to not lose the coverage entirely?
> >
> > It already is in fast-feedback awaiting us landing the wakeref fix. :-p
>
>
> Blindness is bad, kids.
>
>
> Acked-by: Petri Latvala <petri.latvala at intel.com>
Got an irc r-b from Imre for the pm_rpm/module-reload fix, so pushed all
3. All that we have to do now is to fix the wakeref and rejoice in a
green BAT.
-Chris
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list