[Intel-gfx] [RESEND 6/6] drm/i915/selftests: Downgrade igt_timeout message

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 16/07/2018 09:03, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Give in, since CI continues to incorrectly insist that KERN_NOTICE is a
> warning and flags the timeout message as unwanted spam. At first, the
> intention was to use the message to indicate which tests might warrant
> an extended run, but virtually all tests require a timeout so it is
> simply not as interesting as first thought.
> 
> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103667
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> ---
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_selftest.h | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_selftest.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_selftest.h
> index 9766e806dce6..a73472dd12fd 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_selftest.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_selftest.h
> @@ -99,6 +99,6 @@ __printf(2, 3)
>   bool __igt_timeout(unsigned long timeout, const char *fmt, ...);
>   
>   #define igt_timeout(t, fmt, ...) \
> -	__igt_timeout((t), KERN_NOTICE pr_fmt(fmt), ##__VA_ARGS__)
> +	__igt_timeout((t), KERN_DEBUG pr_fmt(fmt), ##__VA_ARGS__)
>   
>   #endif /* !__I915_SELFTEST_H__ */
> 

Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>

Do we need two timeout flavours in selftests - expected (limiting 
runtime) and unexpected (timed out waiting for some event)?

Regards,

Tvrtko