Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for drm/i915/guc: Refactor ADS access to use iosys_map (rev4)

["Vudum, Lakshminarayana" <lakshminarayana.vudum@intel.com>]

Filed two new issues
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/5162
igt@gem_exec_balancer@bonded-dual - incomplete - No logs

https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/5161
igt@gem_mmap_gtt@fault-concurrent-x - incomplete - unhandled error in i915_error_to_vmf_fault: -105

#5161 looks like a new issue but yet to happen on post-merge.

Thanks,
Lakshmi.

-----Original Message-----
From: De Marchi, Lucas <lucas.demarchi@intel.com> 
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2022 10:46 AM
To: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: Vudum, Lakshminarayana <lakshminarayana.vudum@intel.com>
Subject: Re: ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for drm/i915/guc: Refactor ADS access to use iosys_map (rev4)

On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 12:47:31PM +0000, Patchwork wrote:
>== Series Details ==
>
>Series: drm/i915/guc: Refactor ADS access to use iosys_map (rev4)
>URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/99711/
>State : failure
>
>== Summary ==
>
>CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_11250_full -> Patchwork_22334_full 
>====================================================
>
>Summary
>-------
>
>  **FAILURE**
>
>  Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_22334_full absolutely 
> need to be  verified manually.
>
>  If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes  
> introduced in Patchwork_22334_full, please notify your bug team to 
> allow them  to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives in CI.
>
>
>
>Participating hosts (13 -> 13)
>------------------------------
>
>  No changes in participating hosts
>
>Possible new issues
>-------------------
>
>  Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in Patchwork_22334_full:
>
>### IGT changes ###
>
>#### Possible regressions ####
>
>  * igt@gem_exec_balancer@bonded-dual:
>    - shard-tglb:         [PASS][1] -> [INCOMPLETE][2]
>   [1]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11250/shard-tglb6/igt@gem_exec_balancer@bonded-dual.html
>   [2]: 
> https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_22334/shard-tglb6/i
> gt@gem_exec_balancer@bonded-dual.html

<7>[    7.738070] i915 0000:00:02.0: [drm:intel_uc_init_early [i915]] enable_guc=0 (guc:no submission:no huc:no slpc:no)

>
>  * igt@gem_mmap_gtt@fault-concurrent-x:
>    - shard-snb:          [PASS][3] -> [INCOMPLETE][4]
>   [3]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11250/shard-snb4/igt@gem_mmap_gtt@fault-concurrent-x.html
>   [4]: 
> https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_22334/shard-snb6/ig
> t@gem_mmap_gtt@fault-concurrent-x.html

<7>[    4.614922] i915 0000:00:02.0: [drm:intel_uc_init_early [i915]] enable_guc=0 (guc:no submission:no huc:no slpc:no)


anything in this series can only change the behavior when using guc, so these failures can't be related to this series.

Lucas De Marchi