Re: ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for Add HDR Metadata Parsing and handling in DRM layer (rev10)

Shankar, Uma
2019-05-17T13:38:36Z

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ville Syrjälä [mailto:ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com]
>Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 6:54 PM
>To: Shankar, Uma <uma.shankar@intel.com>
>Cc: Peres, Martin <martin.peres@intel.com>; intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
>Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for Add HDR Metadata Parsing and handling
>in DRM layer (rev10)
>
>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@linux.intel.com>; Shankar, Uma
>> ><uma.shankar@intel.com>
>> >Cc: intel-gfx@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@linux.intel.com]
>> >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2019 1:02 AM
>> >>>>>> To: Shankar, Uma <uma.shankar@intel.com>
>> >>>>>> Cc: intel-gfx@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@emeril.freedesktop.org]
>> >>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 6:54 AM
>> >>>>>>>> To: Shankar, Uma <uma.shankar@intel.com>
>> >>>>>>>> Cc: intel-gfx@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@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@gem_exec_suspend@basic-s3.html
>> >>>>>>>> [2]:
>> >>>>>>>> https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_13017/shar
>> >>>>>>>> d- iclb5/igt@gem_exec_suspend@basic-s3.html
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> * igt@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@kms_prop_blob@invalid-set-prop-any.html
>> >>>>>>>> [4]:
>> >>>>>>>> https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_13017/shar
>> >>>>>>>> d- iclb5/igt@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.

Since this came as an issue which didn't reproduced locally and also older versions of the
series also worked, I asked for a re-run to be sure (or if it's already known issue happening due to
something which people are already aware of). Also I never doubted that something is wrong in
blob handing since it was done like that from the beginning of this series. I will be more
careful going forward to add these details and explanations while asking for a re-run.

Regards,
Uma Shankar

>--
>Ville Syrjälä
>Intel