Re: ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for drm/i915: Handle drm-layer errors in intel_dp_add_mst_connector (rev6)

From: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
To: "Ausmus, James" <james.ausmus@intel.com>
Cc: Intel GFX <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for drm/i915: Handle drm-layer errors in intel_dp_add_mst_connector (rev6)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:11:02 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171017101102.GP10981@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA1Hj7TOfY3eaJtvvTn4kQWTsW5Dy7LHQJ66rfVMkkCXRYieMQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 04:04:40PM -0700, Ausmus, James wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 8:35 PM, Patchwork
> <patchwork@emeril.freedesktop.org> wrote:
> > == Series Details ==
> >
> > Series: drm/i915: Handle drm-layer errors in intel_dp_add_mst_connector (rev6)
> > URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/30384/
> > State : failure
> >
> > == Summary ==
> >
> > Test kms_flip:
> >         Subgroup basic-flip-vs-wf_vblank:
> >                 pass       -> FAIL       (shard-hsw)
> >
> > shard-hsw        total:2553 pass:1440 dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:9   skip:1103 time:9649s
> >
> > == Logs ==
> >
> > For more details see: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_6031/shards.html
> 
> I'm not seeing how this failure could relate to the patch involved -
> am I missing something, or was this a fluke?

Yeah, we just missed the target by one frame for some reason. Doesn't
look like that particular test has been flaky before though. But then
again the history for shard runs isn't very long so it's hard to say
for sure how frequent this might be.

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx