[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 01:18:15PM +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?
> 
> 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. 

Did you even try to analyse the failures at all or just assumed
they were bogus and asked for a rerun?

I'm still in the dark as to why these failures were deemed
to not be relevant.

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel