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

[Shankar, Uma]

>>
>> >-----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?

It was giving a PASS on earlier version v9 with same changes. But on v10 it gave
this error. I was thinking it was re-run, on checking with Jani N he clarified that it
was re-reported. 

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