Re: [PATCH] HAX: WARN_ON(crtc->crc.opened during disable)

[Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, 08 Nov 2017, Martin Peres <martin.peres@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 08/11/17 17:59, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Nov 2017, Tomi Sarvela <tomi.p.sarvela@intel.com> wrote:
>>> On 08/11/17 17:27, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 08 Nov 2017, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Quoting Jani Nikula (2017-11-08 13:06:39)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please use trybot (i.e. send patches to
>>>>>> intel-gfx-trybot@lists.freedesktop.org) for hacks that aren't intended
>>>>>> for upstream. Then they can be prioritized appropriately.
>>>>>
>>>>> We don't have excess to the extended test run on trybot yet...
>>>>
>>>> Marta, Martin, Tomi - this.
>>>>
>>>> Though I believe Chris wants access not excess. ;)
>>>
>>> Sssooo... shard-runs for Trybot? Only on success, or also on warning as 
>>> with intel-gfx and igt?
>
> Same as the rest.
>
>>>
>>> The very recent change to run also f-feedback warnings on shards, and 
>>> fixed vetting handling, will cause much more shardruns.
>>>
>>> After KBL DMC update it could be taken to all the runs, instead of 
>>> avoiding it because it's 20 minutes slower (and GLK is 30 minutes more 
>>> slower)
>>>
>>> We'll see if there's enough time in a day.
>> 
>> IIUC there currently just isn't. The problem is, people are now running
>> their hack patches on the regular CI to get full runs, and we can't even
>> prioritize the stuff aimed at upstream over hacks.
>
> Agreed. Developers are being nice to the system by pushing stuff to the
> trybot rather than intel-gfx, so we should provide the same service,
> albeit one with higher latency than intel-gfx@...
>
> Let's however wait to know the impact of the changes Tomi made today
> before increasing the workload even more (Run shards on WARNING BAT
> results, and fixing the suppressed tests/machines handling) :s

Of course, we need to get BAT stabilized (again/more), but this is a
good change at least for now. I was getting a bit tired requesting
re-runs on something that obviously shouldn't break the things that were
reported broken.

> As far as I can see, shards are not a problem right now though:
> https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/cibuglog/metrics.html
>
> I propose waiting until next week before enabling shards on the trybot.

Ack.

BR,
Jani.


>
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx