From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm1-x335.google.com (mail-wm1-x335.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::335]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F0BB10E32F for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2023 10:44:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm1-x335.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-40859c464daso34658465e9.1 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2023 02:44:49 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2023 12:44:34 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Simon Ser References: <20231113094353.1232575-1-bhanuprakash.modem@intel.com> <8HEEyr-hZOCEfFX_B7QVCqB5hDIu6JDdaZPl1vyqw6Ep-AMyApTLBdgROVNAKPiKb6fXfAr-Yqz-HcQ4evk3knZ-lGv5F9xjpILCCztDf4c=@emersion.fr> <11ff717a-06d2-49fd-b73d-0a372f1c80c8@gmail.com> <-X2kuWRq8oIQ1Lco4I-MR9aiuCxru-OYWgvZpjoaH-Vhou2l_0l7ojH97Xet1fRob4VpnlImB3BpP-lC0rTo80o4-xAYiK2hbo1_YgyD2ew=@emersion.fr> <7e113968-b406-4753-a407-a7fc8ee3e908@gmail.com> From: Juha-Pekka Heikkila In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [i-g-t] Revert "syncobj_timeline: don't expect EINVAL for WAIT_UNSUBMITTED, | WAIT_AVAILABLE" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: juhapekka.heikkila@gmail.com Cc: igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: igt-dev-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "igt-dev" List-ID: On 13.11.2023 12.30, Simon Ser wrote: > On Monday, November 13th, 2023 at 11:06, Juha-Pekka Heikkila wrote: > >> On 13.11.2023 12.02, Simon Ser wrote: >> >>> On Monday, November 13th, 2023 at 10:59, Juha-Pekka Heikkila juhapekka.heikkila@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>> On 13.11.2023 11.55, Simon Ser wrote: >>>> >>>>> NACK. Please fix your docs/testplan/i915_tests.rst instead. >>>> >>>> Let's do fixes outside of master branch where it doesn't bother others. >>> >>> Sorry, but no. This commit fixes a bug already. The CI regression is >>> completely unrelated, and Intel-specific, I really don't understand why >>> it happens in the first place. >>> >>> Is it by design that actual bug fixes break Intel CI? >> >> As is this is blocking others totally unrelated to this. This patch >> never passed ci in the first place hence never should've been merged. >> Let's fix it somewhere else than on everyone's build machines independently. > > If we want a quick fix, we can disable the broken Intel CI, instead of > reverting a completely correct bugfix. Simon, disabling CI doesn't universally fix the build for everyone. If you don't use testplan it's your story but it's not the story for all other igt users. Passing ci testing is the requirement for merging, that's why ci is running on patch sets. This reverted patch didn't even build in ci and after you merged it others started to see what ci already had reported about this patch. /Juha-Pekka