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

[Ville Syrjälä]

On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 01:17:05PM +0000, Shankar, Uma wrote:
> 
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Peres, Martin
> >Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 6:39 PM
> >To: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>; 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 17/05/2019 16:04, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> >This is completely unrelated to this series. We have a bug for this issue already, so no
> >worries there.
> >
> >However, thanks for caring so much about this. I should have clarified what I was
> >doing...
> 
> Hi Ville,
> We had a PASS on earlier versions of the series with same change and even locally
> ./tests/kms_prop_blob gave SUCCESS for all subtests.

I don't care. There was a failure in a test that is actually relevant
for the code being changed, so it should have been analyzed and the
results of that analysis shared on the list. Without that I'm just
going to assume there is a potential bug in the new code and not
merge the thing.

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel