✓ CI.BAT: success for Reapply "drm/xe/gsc: define GSC FW for LNL"

[Lucas De Marchi]

On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 09:25:31AM GMT, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote:
>
>
>On 7/2/2024 7:29 AM, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>>On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 01:01:28AM GMT, Patchwork wrote:
>>>== Series Details ==
>>>
>>>Series: Reapply "drm/xe/gsc: define GSC FW for LNL"
>>>URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/135623/
>>>State : success
>>>
>>>== Summary ==
>>>
>>>CI Bug Log - changes from 
>>>xe-1542-886eeb6d89b58f914ee5045fcac54b59a73d8299_BAT -> 
>>>xe-pw-135623v1_BAT
>>>====================================================
>>>
>>>Summary
>>>-------
>>>
>>> **SUCCESS**
>>>
>>> No regressions found.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Participating hosts (5 -> 4)
>>>------------------------------
>>>
>>> Missing    (1): bat-lnl-1
>>
>>I guess it didn't really work. +Ryszard +Ewelina: Can we promote LNL to
>>be considered "a reliable machine from the CI POV" so we don't have
>>"CI.BAT: success" when LNL execution is missing?  Or is there any other
>>reason why we report success in this case?
>
>Damn. I can't repro the issue anymore with this WA applied and even in 
>CI we weren't seeing it when I sent it for testing before: 
>https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/134099/ . I did 3 runs in 
>that case and none of them hit the problem.
>
>I've triggered another run to see if we get any better logs.

this change should NOT make the machine "go missing" really. Actually no
change to xe-only should really make a machine not have any log at
all....

I believe it was a very unfortunate coincidence and there must be a
network issue or the like... but we can't consider success when we don't
have a report for LNL. Particularly for this patch since LNL is
the only affected platform.

"try again"  in patchwork sounds good for now.

thanks
Lucas De Marchi

>
>Daniele
>
>>
>>thanks
>>Lucas De Marchi
>