[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for Add HDR Metadata Parsing and handling in DRM layer (rev10)

[Ville Syrjälä]

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 07:28:43AM +0000, Shankar, Uma wrote:
> 
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Ville Syrjälä [mailto:ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com]
> >Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2019 1:02 AM
> >To: Shankar, Uma <uma.shankar at intel.com>
> >Cc: intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> >Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for Add HDR Metadata Parsing and handling
> >in DRM layer (rev10)
> >
> >On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 08:59:37AM +0000, Shankar, Uma wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >From: Patchwork [mailto:patchwork at emeril.freedesktop.org]
> >> >Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 6:54 AM
> >> >To: Shankar, Uma <uma.shankar at intel.com>
> >> >Cc: intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> >> >Subject: ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for Add HDR Metadata Parsing and
> >> >handling in DRM layer
> >> >(rev10)
> >> >
> >> >== Series Details ==
> >> >
> >> >Series: Add HDR Metadata Parsing and handling in DRM layer (rev10)
> >> >URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/25091/
> >> >State : failure
> >> >
> >> >== Summary ==
> >> >
> >> >CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_6081_full -> Patchwork_13017_full
> >> >====================================================
> >> >
> >> >Summary
> >> >-------
> >> >
> >> >  **FAILURE**
> >> >
> >> >  Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_13017_full absolutely
> >> > need to be  verified manually.
> >> >
> >> >  If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the
> >> > changes  introduced in Patchwork_13017_full, please notify your bug
> >> > team to allow them  to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false
> >positives in CI.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Possible new issues
> >> >-------------------
> >> >
> >> >  Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in
> >> >Patchwork_13017_full:
> >> >
> >> >### IGT changes ###
> >> >
> >> >#### Possible regressions ####
> >> >
> >> >  * igt at gem_exec_suspend@basic-s3:
> >> >    - shard-iclb:         [PASS][1] -> [SKIP][2] +43 similar issues
> >> >   [1]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_6081/shard-
> >> >iclb6/igt at gem_exec_suspend@basic-s3.html
> >> >   [2]:
> >> >https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_13017/shard-
> >> >iclb5/igt at gem_exec_suspend@basic-s3.html
> >> >
> >> >  * igt at kms_prop_blob@invalid-set-prop-any:
> >> >    - shard-iclb:         [PASS][3] -> [FAIL][4]
> >> >   [3]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_6081/shard-
> >> >iclb6/igt at kms_prop_blob@invalid-set-prop-any.html
> >> >   [4]:
> >> >https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_13017/shard-
> >> >iclb5/igt at kms_prop_blob@invalid-set-prop-any.html
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hi Martin,
> >> These issues are unrelated to the changes made in this series. Can you
> >> please have a look and confirm.
> >
> >The kms_prop fails at least are real. Probably due to the bogus function arguements
> >to the replace_blob() thing I pointed out.
> 
> The CI IGT have a clean PASS now.

You mean it went from FAIL to PASS on its own? Why did that happen?

> Will anyways update the function arguments and make
> it consistent.
> 
> Regards,
> Uma Shankar
> 
> >--
> >Ville Syrjälä
> >Intel

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel