| Message ID | 20241204-cursor_tor_skip-v1-1-f5f0bba5df7b@quicinc.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | drm/ci: add kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo to apq8016 flakes | expand |
Hi Abhinav, Thanks for your patch. ---- On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 15:55:17 -0300 Abhinav Kumar wrote --- > From the jobs [1] and [2] of pipeline [3], its clear that > kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo is most certainly a flake and > not a fail for apq8016. Mark the test accordingly to match the results. > > [1] : https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67676481 > [2] : https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67677430 > [3]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/pipelines/1322770 > > Signed-off-by: Abhinav Kumar quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt b/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..18639853f18f > --- /dev/null > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt > @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ > +# Board Name: msm-apq8016-db410c > +# Failure Rate: 100 Is failure rate is 100%, isn't it a fail than? (I know we have other cases with Failure Rate: 100, maybe we should fix them as well) Regards, Helen > +# IGT Version: 1.28-ga73311079 > +# Linux Version: 6.12.0-rc2 > +kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo > > --- > base-commit: 798bb342e0416d846cf67f4725a3428f39bfb96b > change-id: 20241204-cursor_tor_skip-9d128dd62c4f > > Best regards, > -- > Abhinav Kumar quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com> > >
Hi Helen On 12/4/2024 11:14 AM, Helen Mae Koike Fornazier wrote: > Hi Abhinav, > > Thanks for your patch. > > > > ---- On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 15:55:17 -0300 Abhinav Kumar wrote --- > > > From the jobs [1] and [2] of pipeline [3], its clear that > > kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo is most certainly a flake and > > not a fail for apq8016. Mark the test accordingly to match the results. > > > > [1] : https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67676481 > > [2] : https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67677430 > > [3]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/pipelines/1322770 > > > > Signed-off-by: Abhinav Kumar quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt | 5 +++++ > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt b/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..18639853f18f > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt > > @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ > > +# Board Name: msm-apq8016-db410c > > +# Failure Rate: 100 > > Is failure rate is 100%, isn't it a fail than? > (I know we have other cases with Failure Rate: 100, maybe we should fix them as well) > Maybe I misunderstood the meaning of "Failure rate" for a flake. I interpreted this as this test being flaky 100% of the time :) Out of the 3 runs of the test, it passed 2/3 times and failed 1/3. So its fail % actually is 33.33% in that case. I think I saw a Failure rate of 100% on msm-sm8350-hdk-flakes.txt and mistook that as the rate at which flakes are seen. Let me fix this up as 33% > Regards, > Helen > > > +# IGT Version: 1.28-ga73311079 > > +# Linux Version: 6.12.0-rc2 > > +kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo > > > > --- > > base-commit: 798bb342e0416d846cf67f4725a3428f39bfb96b > > change-id: 20241204-cursor_tor_skip-9d128dd62c4f > > > > Best regards, > > -- > > Abhinav Kumar quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com> > > > > >
---- On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 16:21:26 -0300 Abhinav Kumar wrote --- > Hi Helen > > On 12/4/2024 11:14 AM, Helen Mae Koike Fornazier wrote: > > Hi Abhinav, > > > > Thanks for your patch. > > > > > > > > ---- On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 15:55:17 -0300 Abhinav Kumar wrote --- > > > > > From the jobs [1] and [2] of pipeline [3], its clear that > > > kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo is most certainly a flake and > > > not a fail for apq8016. Mark the test accordingly to match the results. > > > > > > [1] : https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67676481 > > > [2] : https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67677430 > > > [3]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/pipelines/1322770 > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Abhinav Kumar quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt | 5 +++++ > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt b/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 000000000000..18639853f18f > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt > > > @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ > > > +# Board Name: msm-apq8016-db410c > > > +# Failure Rate: 100 > > > > Is failure rate is 100%, isn't it a fail than? > > (I know we have other cases with Failure Rate: 100, maybe we should fix them as well) > > > > Maybe I misunderstood the meaning of "Failure rate" for a flake. > > I interpreted this as this test being flaky 100% of the time :) Ah right, I see, inside deqp-runner (that auto-retries). I'd like to hear Vignesh's opinion on this. (In any case, we probably should document this better) Regards, Helen > > Out of the 3 runs of the test, it passed 2/3 times and failed 1/3. > > So its fail % actually is 33.33% in that case. > > I think I saw a Failure rate of 100% on msm-sm8350-hdk-flakes.txt and > mistook that as the rate at which flakes are seen. > > Let me fix this up as 33% > > > Regards, > > Helen > > > > > +# IGT Version: 1.28-ga73311079 > > > +# Linux Version: 6.12.0-rc2 > > > +kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo > > > > > > --- > > > base-commit: 798bb342e0416d846cf67f4725a3428f39bfb96b > > > change-id: 20241204-cursor_tor_skip-9d128dd62c4f > > > > > > Best regards, > > > -- > > > Abhinav Kumar quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com> > > > > > > > > >
Hi Helen / Vignesh On 12/4/2024 12:33 PM, Helen Mae Koike Fornazier wrote: > > > > > ---- On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 16:21:26 -0300 Abhinav Kumar wrote --- > > > Hi Helen > > > > On 12/4/2024 11:14 AM, Helen Mae Koike Fornazier wrote: > > > Hi Abhinav, > > > > > > Thanks for your patch. > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 15:55:17 -0300 Abhinav Kumar wrote --- > > > > > > > From the jobs [1] and [2] of pipeline [3], its clear that > > > > kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo is most certainly a flake and > > > > not a fail for apq8016. Mark the test accordingly to match the results. > > > > > > > > [1] : https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67676481 > > > > [2] : https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67677430 > > > > [3]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/pipelines/1322770 > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Abhinav Kumar quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt | 5 +++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt b/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > index 000000000000..18639853f18f > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ > > > > +# Board Name: msm-apq8016-db410c > > > > +# Failure Rate: 100 > > > > > > Is failure rate is 100%, isn't it a fail than? > > > (I know we have other cases with Failure Rate: 100, maybe we should fix them as well) > > > > > > > Maybe I misunderstood the meaning of "Failure rate" for a flake. > > > > I interpreted this as this test being flaky 100% of the time :) > > Ah right, I see, inside deqp-runner (that auto-retries). > > I'd like to hear Vignesh's opinion on this. > > (In any case, we probably should document this better) > > Regards, > Helen > Can you let me know which way we need to go? Just in case I did post a v2 fixing this, https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/627276/ If thats the way to go, can you pls take a look? Thanks Abhinav > > > > Out of the 3 runs of the test, it passed 2/3 times and failed 1/3. > > > > So its fail % actually is 33.33% in that case. > > > > I think I saw a Failure rate of 100% on msm-sm8350-hdk-flakes.txt and > > mistook that as the rate at which flakes are seen. > > > > Let me fix this up as 33% > > > > > Regards, > > > Helen > > > > > > > +# IGT Version: 1.28-ga73311079 > > > > +# Linux Version: 6.12.0-rc2 > > > > +kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo > > > > > > > > --- > > > > base-commit: 798bb342e0416d846cf67f4725a3428f39bfb96b > > > > change-id: 20241204-cursor_tor_skip-9d128dd62c4f > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > -- > > > > Abhinav Kumar quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Hi Abhinav / Helen, On 12/12/24 01:48, Abhinav Kumar wrote: > Hi Helen / Vignesh > > On 12/4/2024 12:33 PM, Helen Mae Koike Fornazier wrote: >> >> >> >> >> ---- On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 16:21:26 -0300 Abhinav Kumar wrote --- >> >> > Hi Helen >> > >> > On 12/4/2024 11:14 AM, Helen Mae Koike Fornazier wrote: >> > > Hi Abhinav, >> > > >> > > Thanks for your patch. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > ---- On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 15:55:17 -0300 Abhinav Kumar wrote --- >> > > >> > > > From the jobs [1] and [2] of pipeline [3], its clear that >> > > > kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo is most certainly a flake and >> > > > not a fail for apq8016. Mark the test accordingly to match >> the results. >> > > > >> > > > [1] : https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67676481 The test passes - kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo,UnexpectedImprovement(Pass) >> > > > [2] : https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67677430 There are no test failures >> > > > [3]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/pipelines/1322770 The job is same as 2 In this case, the test passes and deqp-runner does not report it as flake. So we only need to remove it from fails file. >> > > > >> > > > Signed-off-by: Abhinav Kumar quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com> >> > > > --- >> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt | 5 +++++ >> > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >> > > > >> > > > diff --git >> a/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt >> > > > new file mode 100644 >> > > > index 000000000000..18639853f18f >> > > > --- /dev/null >> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt >> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ >> > > > +# Board Name: msm-apq8016-db410c >> > > > +# Failure Rate: 100 >> > > >> > > Is failure rate is 100%, isn't it a fail than? >> > > (I know we have other cases with Failure Rate: 100, maybe we >> should fix them as well) >> > > >> > >> > Maybe I misunderstood the meaning of "Failure rate" for a flake. >> > >> > I interpreted this as this test being flaky 100% of the time :) >> >> Ah right, I see, inside deqp-runner (that auto-retries). >> >> I'd like to hear Vignesh's opinion on this. >> >> (In any case, we probably should document this better) deqp-runner reports new (not present in flakes file) or known (present in flakes file) flakes 2024-12-11 07:25:44.709666: Some new flakes found: 2024-12-11 07:25:44.709676: kms_lease@page-flip-implicit-plane 2024-12-11 13:15:16.482890: Some known flakes found: 2024-12-11 13:15:16.482898: kms_async_flips@async-flip-with-page-flip-events-atomic we add it to flakes file if deqp runner reports new flakes. Another case where we update flake tests is when a test passes in one run but fails in another, but deqp-runner does not report it as flake. Regards, Vignesh >> >> Regards, >> Helen >> > > Can you let me know which way we need to go? > > Just in case I did post a v2 fixing this, > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/627276/ > > If thats the way to go, can you pls take a look? > > Thanks > > Abhinav >> > >> > Out of the 3 runs of the test, it passed 2/3 times and failed 1/3. >> > >> > So its fail % actually is 33.33% in that case. >> > >> > I think I saw a Failure rate of 100% on msm-sm8350-hdk-flakes.txt and >> > mistook that as the rate at which flakes are seen. >> > >> > Let me fix this up as 33% >> > >> > > Regards, >> > > Helen >> > > >> > > > +# IGT Version: 1.28-ga73311079 >> > > > +# Linux Version: 6.12.0-rc2 >> > > > +kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo >> > > > >> > > > --- >> > > > base-commit: 798bb342e0416d846cf67f4725a3428f39bfb96b >> > > > change-id: 20241204-cursor_tor_skip-9d128dd62c4f >> > > > >> > > > Best regards, >> > > > -- >> > > > Abhinav Kumar quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com> >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >>
Hi Vignesh On 12/11/2024 9:10 PM, Vignesh Raman wrote: > Hi Abhinav / Helen, > > On 12/12/24 01:48, Abhinav Kumar wrote: >> Hi Helen / Vignesh >> >> On 12/4/2024 12:33 PM, Helen Mae Koike Fornazier wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ---- On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 16:21:26 -0300 Abhinav Kumar wrote --- >>> >>> > Hi Helen >>> > >>> > On 12/4/2024 11:14 AM, Helen Mae Koike Fornazier wrote: >>> > > Hi Abhinav, >>> > > >>> > > Thanks for your patch. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > ---- On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 15:55:17 -0300 Abhinav Kumar wrote --- >>> > > >>> > > > From the jobs [1] and [2] of pipeline [3], its clear that >>> > > > kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo is most certainly a flake and >>> > > > not a fail for apq8016. Mark the test accordingly to match >>> the results. >>> > > > >>> > > > [1] : https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67676481 > > The test passes - kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo,UnexpectedImprovement(Pass) > Yes, thats the problem https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67676481/viewer#L2696 24-12-04 03:51:55 R SERIAL> [ 179.241309] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: finished subtest all-pipes, SUCCESS 24-12-04 03:51:55 R SERIAL> [ 179.241812] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: finished subtest torture-bo, SUCCESS Here it passes whereas it was marked a failure. Hence pipeline fails. >>> > > > [2] : https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67677430 > > There are no test failures > No, thats not true https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67677430/viewer#L2694 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.379649] Console: switching to colour dummy device 80x25 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.379938] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: executing 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.393868] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: starting subtest torture-bo 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.394186] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: starting dynamic subtest pipe-A 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.661749] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: finished subtest pipe-A, FAIL 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.662060] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: starting dynamic subtest all-pipes 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.713237] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: finished subtest all-pipes, FAIL 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.713513] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: finished subtest torture-bo, FAIL 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.721263] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: exiting, ret=98 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.737857] Console: switching to colour frame buffer device 128x48 Please check these logs, the torture-bo test-case did fail. The pipeline was marked pass because it was an expected fail. So we have two pipelines, where one failed and the other passed. So thats a flake for me. >>> > > > [3]: >>> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/pipelines/1322770 > > The job is same as 2 > > In this case, the test passes and deqp-runner does not report it as > flake. So we only need to remove it from fails file. > No, like I mentioned above we have a pass and a fail. > >>> > > > >>> > > > Signed-off-by: Abhinav Kumar quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com> >>> > > > --- >>> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt | 5 +++++ >>> > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>> > > > >>> > > > diff --git >>> a/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt >>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt >>> > > > new file mode 100644 >>> > > > index 000000000000..18639853f18f >>> > > > --- /dev/null >>> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt >>> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ >>> > > > +# Board Name: msm-apq8016-db410c >>> > > > +# Failure Rate: 100 >>> > > >>> > > Is failure rate is 100%, isn't it a fail than? >>> > > (I know we have other cases with Failure Rate: 100, maybe we >>> should fix them as well) >>> > > >>> > >>> > Maybe I misunderstood the meaning of "Failure rate" for a flake. >>> > >>> > I interpreted this as this test being flaky 100% of the time :) >>> >>> Ah right, I see, inside deqp-runner (that auto-retries). >>> >>> I'd like to hear Vignesh's opinion on this. >>> >>> (In any case, we probably should document this better) > > deqp-runner reports new (not present in flakes file) or known (present > in flakes file) flakes > > 2024-12-11 07:25:44.709666: Some new flakes found: > 2024-12-11 07:25:44.709676: kms_lease@page-flip-implicit-plane > > 2024-12-11 13:15:16.482890: Some known flakes found: > 2024-12-11 13:15:16.482898: > kms_async_flips@async-flip-with-page-flip-events-atomic > > we add it to flakes file if deqp runner reports new flakes. Another case > where we update flake tests is when a test passes in one run but fails > in another, but deqp-runner does not report it as flake. > > Regards, > Vignesh > The confusion here i guess is about what to mention as a "Failure rate" Failure rate means how many times it fails (like normally) ? In that case 100% which I used is wrong and I used 33% instead for which I have pushed v2. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Helen >>> >> >> Can you let me know which way we need to go? >> >> Just in case I did post a v2 fixing this, >> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/627276/ >> >> If thats the way to go, can you pls take a look? >> >> Thanks >> >> Abhinav >>> > >>> > Out of the 3 runs of the test, it passed 2/3 times and failed 1/3. >>> > >>> > So its fail % actually is 33.33% in that case. >>> > >>> > I think I saw a Failure rate of 100% on msm-sm8350-hdk-flakes.txt >>> and >>> > mistook that as the rate at which flakes are seen. >>> > >>> > Let me fix this up as 33% >>> > >>> > > Regards, >>> > > Helen >>> > > >>> > > > +# IGT Version: 1.28-ga73311079 >>> > > > +# Linux Version: 6.12.0-rc2 >>> > > > +kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo >>> > > > >>> > > > --- >>> > > > base-commit: 798bb342e0416d846cf67f4725a3428f39bfb96b >>> > > > change-id: 20241204-cursor_tor_skip-9d128dd62c4f >>> > > > >>> > > > Best regards, >>> > > > -- >>> > > > Abhinav Kumar quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com> >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>>
Hi Abhinav, On 14/12/24 01:09, Abhinav Kumar wrote: > Hi Vignesh > > On 12/11/2024 9:10 PM, Vignesh Raman wrote: >> Hi Abhinav / Helen, >> >> On 12/12/24 01:48, Abhinav Kumar wrote: >>> Hi Helen / Vignesh >>> >>> On 12/4/2024 12:33 PM, Helen Mae Koike Fornazier wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---- On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 16:21:26 -0300 Abhinav Kumar wrote --- >>>> >>>> > Hi Helen >>>> > >>>> > On 12/4/2024 11:14 AM, Helen Mae Koike Fornazier wrote: >>>> > > Hi Abhinav, >>>> > > >>>> > > Thanks for your patch. >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > ---- On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 15:55:17 -0300 Abhinav Kumar wrote --- >>>> > > >>>> > > > From the jobs [1] and [2] of pipeline [3], its clear that >>>> > > > kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo is most certainly a flake and >>>> > > > not a fail for apq8016. Mark the test accordingly to match >>>> the results. >>>> > > > >>>> > > > [1] : https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67676481 >> >> The test passes - >> kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo,UnexpectedImprovement(Pass) >> > > Yes, thats the problem > > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67676481/viewer#L2696 > > 24-12-04 03:51:55 R SERIAL> [ 179.241309] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: > finished subtest all-pipes, SUCCESS > 24-12-04 03:51:55 R SERIAL> [ 179.241812] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: > finished subtest torture-bo, SUCCESS > > Here it passes whereas it was marked a failure. Hence pipeline fails. Yes it fails due to, Unexpected results: kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo,UnexpectedImprovement(Pass) In this case, we need to remove this test from fails.txt > >>>> > > > [2] : https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67677430 >> >> There are no test failures >> > > No, thats not true > > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67677430/viewer#L2694 > > 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.379649] Console: switching to colour > dummy device 80x25 > 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.379938] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: > executing > 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.393868] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: > starting subtest torture-bo > 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.394186] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: > starting dynamic subtest pipe-A > 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.661749] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: > finished subtest pipe-A, FAIL > 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.662060] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: > starting dynamic subtest all-pipes > 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.713237] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: > finished subtest all-pipes, FAIL > 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.713513] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: > finished subtest torture-bo, FAIL > 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.721263] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: > exiting, ret=98 > 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.737857] Console: switching to colour > frame buffer device 128x48 > > Please check these logs, the torture-bo test-case did fail. The pipeline > was marked pass because it was an expected fail. > > So we have two pipelines, where one failed and the other passed. So > thats a flake for me. Yes agree. So if we had removed the test from fails, deqp-runner would have reported this as flake. deqp-runner runs the test and if it fails, it retries. If the test passes on retry, it is reported as a flake. > >>>> > > > [3]: >>>> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/pipelines/1322770 >> >> The job is same as 2 >> >> In this case, the test passes and deqp-runner does not report it as >> flake. So we only need to remove it from fails file. >> > > No, like I mentioned above we have a pass and a fail. > >> >>>> > > > >>>> > > > Signed-off-by: Abhinav Kumar quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com> >>>> > > > --- >>>> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt | 5 +++++ >>>> > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>>> > > > >>>> > > > diff --git >>>> a/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt >>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt >>>> > > > new file mode 100644 >>>> > > > index 000000000000..18639853f18f >>>> > > > --- /dev/null >>>> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt >>>> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ >>>> > > > +# Board Name: msm-apq8016-db410c >>>> > > > +# Failure Rate: 100 >>>> > > >>>> > > Is failure rate is 100%, isn't it a fail than? >>>> > > (I know we have other cases with Failure Rate: 100, maybe we >>>> should fix them as well) >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> > Maybe I misunderstood the meaning of "Failure rate" for a flake. >>>> > >>>> > I interpreted this as this test being flaky 100% of the time :) >>>> >>>> Ah right, I see, inside deqp-runner (that auto-retries). >>>> >>>> I'd like to hear Vignesh's opinion on this. >>>> >>>> (In any case, we probably should document this better) >> >> deqp-runner reports new (not present in flakes file) or known (present >> in flakes file) flakes >> >> 2024-12-11 07:25:44.709666: Some new flakes found: >> 2024-12-11 07:25:44.709676: kms_lease@page-flip-implicit-plane >> >> 2024-12-11 13:15:16.482890: Some known flakes found: >> 2024-12-11 13:15:16.482898: >> kms_async_flips@async-flip-with-page-flip-events-atomic >> >> we add it to flakes file if deqp runner reports new flakes. Another >> case where we update flake tests is when a test passes in one run but >> fails in another, but deqp-runner does not report it as flake. >> >> Regards, >> Vignesh >> > > The confusion here i guess is about what to mention as a "Failure rate" > > Failure rate means how many times it fails (like normally) ? In that > case 100% which I used is wrong and I used 33% instead for which I have > pushed v2. Yes, 33% is correct and please remove this test from fails.txt Regards, Vignesh > >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Helen >>>> >>> >>> Can you let me know which way we need to go? >>> >>> Just in case I did post a v2 fixing this, >>> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/627276/ >>> >>> If thats the way to go, can you pls take a look? >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Abhinav >>>> > >>>> > Out of the 3 runs of the test, it passed 2/3 times and failed 1/3. >>>> > >>>> > So its fail % actually is 33.33% in that case. >>>> > >>>> > I think I saw a Failure rate of 100% on >>>> msm-sm8350-hdk-flakes.txt and >>>> > mistook that as the rate at which flakes are seen. >>>> > >>>> > Let me fix this up as 33% >>>> > >>>> > > Regards, >>>> > > Helen >>>> > > >>>> > > > +# IGT Version: 1.28-ga73311079 >>>> > > > +# Linux Version: 6.12.0-rc2 >>>> > > > +kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo >>>> > > > >>>> > > > --- >>>> > > > base-commit: 798bb342e0416d846cf67f4725a3428f39bfb96b >>>> > > > change-id: 20241204-cursor_tor_skip-9d128dd62c4f >>>> > > > >>>> > > > Best regards, >>>> > > > -- >>>> > > > Abhinav Kumar quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com> >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>>
On 12/15/2024 9:45 PM, Vignesh Raman wrote: > Hi Abhinav, > > On 14/12/24 01:09, Abhinav Kumar wrote: >> Hi Vignesh >> >> On 12/11/2024 9:10 PM, Vignesh Raman wrote: >>> Hi Abhinav / Helen, >>> >>> On 12/12/24 01:48, Abhinav Kumar wrote: >>>> Hi Helen / Vignesh >>>> >>>> On 12/4/2024 12:33 PM, Helen Mae Koike Fornazier wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---- On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 16:21:26 -0300 Abhinav Kumar wrote --- >>>>> >>>>> > Hi Helen >>>>> > >>>>> > On 12/4/2024 11:14 AM, Helen Mae Koike Fornazier wrote: >>>>> > > Hi Abhinav, >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Thanks for your patch. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > ---- On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 15:55:17 -0300 Abhinav Kumar wrote --- >>>>> > > >>>>> > > > From the jobs [1] and [2] of pipeline [3], its clear that >>>>> > > > kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo is most certainly a flake and >>>>> > > > not a fail for apq8016. Mark the test accordingly to >>>>> match the results. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > [1] : https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67676481 >>> >>> The test passes - >>> kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo,UnexpectedImprovement(Pass) >>> >> >> Yes, thats the problem >> >> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67676481/viewer#L2696 >> >> 24-12-04 03:51:55 R SERIAL> [ 179.241309] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: >> finished subtest all-pipes, SUCCESS >> 24-12-04 03:51:55 R SERIAL> [ 179.241812] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: >> finished subtest torture-bo, SUCCESS >> >> Here it passes whereas it was marked a failure. Hence pipeline fails. > > Yes it fails due to, > > Unexpected results: > kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo,UnexpectedImprovement(Pass) > > In this case, we need to remove this test from fails.txt > >> >>>>> > > > [2] : https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67677430 >>> >>> There are no test failures >>> >> >> No, thats not true >> >> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67677430/viewer#L2694 >> >> 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.379649] Console: switching to >> colour dummy device 80x25 >> 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.379938] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: >> executing >> 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.393868] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: >> starting subtest torture-bo >> 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.394186] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: >> starting dynamic subtest pipe-A >> 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.661749] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: >> finished subtest pipe-A, FAIL >> 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.662060] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: >> starting dynamic subtest all-pipes >> 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.713237] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: >> finished subtest all-pipes, FAIL >> 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.713513] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: >> finished subtest torture-bo, FAIL >> 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.721263] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: >> exiting, ret=98 >> 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.737857] Console: switching to >> colour frame buffer device 128x48 >> >> Please check these logs, the torture-bo test-case did fail. The >> pipeline was marked pass because it was an expected fail. >> >> So we have two pipelines, where one failed and the other passed. So >> thats a flake for me. > > Yes agree. So if we had removed the test from fails, deqp-runner would > have reported this as flake. > > deqp-runner runs the test and if it fails, it retries. If the test > passes on retry, it is reported as a flake. > >> >>>>> > > > [3]: >>>>> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/pipelines/1322770 >>> >>> The job is same as 2 >>> >>> In this case, the test passes and deqp-runner does not report it as >>> flake. So we only need to remove it from fails file. >>> >> >> No, like I mentioned above we have a pass and a fail. >> >>> >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Signed-off-by: Abhinav Kumar quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com> >>>>> > > > --- >>>>> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt | 5 +++++ >>>>> > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > diff --git >>>>> a/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt >>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt >>>>> > > > new file mode 100644 >>>>> > > > index 000000000000..18639853f18f >>>>> > > > --- /dev/null >>>>> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt >>>>> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ >>>>> > > > +# Board Name: msm-apq8016-db410c >>>>> > > > +# Failure Rate: 100 >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Is failure rate is 100%, isn't it a fail than? >>>>> > > (I know we have other cases with Failure Rate: 100, maybe we >>>>> should fix them as well) >>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>>> > Maybe I misunderstood the meaning of "Failure rate" for a flake. >>>>> > >>>>> > I interpreted this as this test being flaky 100% of the time :) >>>>> >>>>> Ah right, I see, inside deqp-runner (that auto-retries). >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to hear Vignesh's opinion on this. >>>>> >>>>> (In any case, we probably should document this better) >>> >>> deqp-runner reports new (not present in flakes file) or known >>> (present in flakes file) flakes >>> >>> 2024-12-11 07:25:44.709666: Some new flakes found: >>> 2024-12-11 07:25:44.709676: kms_lease@page-flip-implicit-plane >>> >>> 2024-12-11 13:15:16.482890: Some known flakes found: >>> 2024-12-11 13:15:16.482898: >>> kms_async_flips@async-flip-with-page-flip-events-atomic >>> >>> we add it to flakes file if deqp runner reports new flakes. Another >>> case where we update flake tests is when a test passes in one run but >>> fails in another, but deqp-runner does not report it as flake. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Vignesh >>> >> >> The confusion here i guess is about what to mention as a "Failure rate" >> >> Failure rate means how many times it fails (like normally) ? In that >> case 100% which I used is wrong and I used 33% instead for which I >> have pushed v2. > > Yes, 33% is correct and please remove this test from fails.txt > > Regards, > Vignesh > Ack, let me remove this test from fails and keep it only in flakes. Thanks Abhinav >> >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Helen >>>>> >>>> >>>> Can you let me know which way we need to go? >>>> >>>> Just in case I did post a v2 fixing this, >>>> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/627276/ >>>> >>>> If thats the way to go, can you pls take a look? >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Abhinav >>>>> > >>>>> > Out of the 3 runs of the test, it passed 2/3 times and failed 1/3. >>>>> > >>>>> > So its fail % actually is 33.33% in that case. >>>>> > >>>>> > I think I saw a Failure rate of 100% on >>>>> msm-sm8350-hdk-flakes.txt and >>>>> > mistook that as the rate at which flakes are seen. >>>>> > >>>>> > Let me fix this up as 33% >>>>> > >>>>> > > Regards, >>>>> > > Helen >>>>> > > >>>>> > > > +# IGT Version: 1.28-ga73311079 >>>>> > > > +# Linux Version: 6.12.0-rc2 >>>>> > > > +kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > --- >>>>> > > > base-commit: 798bb342e0416d846cf67f4725a3428f39bfb96b >>>>> > > > change-id: 20241204-cursor_tor_skip-9d128dd62c4f >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Best regards, >>>>> > > > -- >>>>> > > > Abhinav Kumar quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com> >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>>>
Hi Abhinav, On 16/12/24 11:39, Abhinav Kumar wrote: > > > On 12/15/2024 9:45 PM, Vignesh Raman wrote: >> Hi Abhinav, >> >> On 14/12/24 01:09, Abhinav Kumar wrote: >>> Hi Vignesh >>> >>> On 12/11/2024 9:10 PM, Vignesh Raman wrote: >>>> Hi Abhinav / Helen, >>>> >>>> On 12/12/24 01:48, Abhinav Kumar wrote: >>>>> Hi Helen / Vignesh >>>>> >>>>> On 12/4/2024 12:33 PM, Helen Mae Koike Fornazier wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ---- On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 16:21:26 -0300 Abhinav Kumar wrote --- >>>>>> >>>>>> > Hi Helen >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On 12/4/2024 11:14 AM, Helen Mae Koike Fornazier wrote: >>>>>> > > Hi Abhinav, >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > Thanks for your patch. >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > ---- On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 15:55:17 -0300 Abhinav Kumar wrote >>>>>> --- >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > > From the jobs [1] and [2] of pipeline [3], its clear that >>>>>> > > > kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo is most certainly a flake and >>>>>> > > > not a fail for apq8016. Mark the test accordingly to >>>>>> match the results. >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > [1] : >>>>>> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67676481 >>>> >>>> The test passes - >>>> kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo,UnexpectedImprovement(Pass) >>>> >>> >>> Yes, thats the problem >>> >>> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67676481/viewer#L2696 >>> >>> 24-12-04 03:51:55 R SERIAL> [ 179.241309] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: >>> finished subtest all-pipes, SUCCESS >>> 24-12-04 03:51:55 R SERIAL> [ 179.241812] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: >>> finished subtest torture-bo, SUCCESS >>> >>> Here it passes whereas it was marked a failure. Hence pipeline fails. >> >> Yes it fails due to, >> >> Unexpected results: >> kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo,UnexpectedImprovement(Pass) >> >> In this case, we need to remove this test from fails.txt >> >>> >>>>>> > > > [2] : >>>>>> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67677430 >>>> >>>> There are no test failures >>>> >>> >>> No, thats not true >>> >>> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67677430/viewer#L2694 >>> >>> 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.379649] Console: switching to >>> colour dummy device 80x25 >>> 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.379938] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: >>> executing >>> 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.393868] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: >>> starting subtest torture-bo >>> 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.394186] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: >>> starting dynamic subtest pipe-A >>> 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.661749] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: >>> finished subtest pipe-A, FAIL >>> 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.662060] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: >>> starting dynamic subtest all-pipes >>> 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.713237] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: >>> finished subtest all-pipes, FAIL >>> 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.713513] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: >>> finished subtest torture-bo, FAIL >>> 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.721263] [IGT] kms_cursor_legacy: >>> exiting, ret=98 >>> 24-12-04 04:18:38 R SERIAL> [ 170.737857] Console: switching to >>> colour frame buffer device 128x48 >>> >>> Please check these logs, the torture-bo test-case did fail. The >>> pipeline was marked pass because it was an expected fail. >>> >>> So we have two pipelines, where one failed and the other passed. So >>> thats a flake for me. >> >> Yes agree. So if we had removed the test from fails, deqp-runner would >> have reported this as flake. >> >> deqp-runner runs the test and if it fails, it retries. If the test >> passes on retry, it is reported as a flake. >> >>> >>>>>> > > > [3]: >>>>>> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/pipelines/1322770 >>>> >>>> The job is same as 2 >>>> >>>> In this case, the test passes and deqp-runner does not report it as >>>> flake. So we only need to remove it from fails file. >>>> >>> >>> No, like I mentioned above we have a pass and a fail. >>> >>>> >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > Signed-off-by: Abhinav Kumar quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com> >>>>>> > > > --- >>>>>> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt | 5 +++++ >>>>>> > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > diff --git >>>>>> a/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt >>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt >>>>>> > > > new file mode 100644 >>>>>> > > > index 000000000000..18639853f18f >>>>>> > > > --- /dev/null >>>>>> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt >>>>>> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ >>>>>> > > > +# Board Name: msm-apq8016-db410c >>>>>> > > > +# Failure Rate: 100 >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > Is failure rate is 100%, isn't it a fail than? >>>>>> > > (I know we have other cases with Failure Rate: 100, maybe we >>>>>> should fix them as well) >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Maybe I misunderstood the meaning of "Failure rate" for a flake. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I interpreted this as this test being flaky 100% of the time :) >>>>>> >>>>>> Ah right, I see, inside deqp-runner (that auto-retries). >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd like to hear Vignesh's opinion on this. >>>>>> >>>>>> (In any case, we probably should document this better) >>>> >>>> deqp-runner reports new (not present in flakes file) or known >>>> (present in flakes file) flakes >>>> >>>> 2024-12-11 07:25:44.709666: Some new flakes found: >>>> 2024-12-11 07:25:44.709676: kms_lease@page-flip-implicit-plane >>>> >>>> 2024-12-11 13:15:16.482890: Some known flakes found: >>>> 2024-12-11 13:15:16.482898: >>>> kms_async_flips@async-flip-with-page-flip-events-atomic >>>> >>>> we add it to flakes file if deqp runner reports new flakes. Another >>>> case where we update flake tests is when a test passes in one run >>>> but fails in another, but deqp-runner does not report it as flake. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Vignesh >>>> >>> >>> The confusion here i guess is about what to mention as a "Failure rate" >>> >>> Failure rate means how many times it fails (like normally) ? In that >>> case 100% which I used is wrong and I used 33% instead for which I >>> have pushed v2. >> >> Yes, 33% is correct and please remove this test from fails.txt >> >> Regards, >> Vignesh >> > > Ack, let me remove this test from fails and keep it only in flakes. Can you remove it from the fails without adding it to the flakes, and rerun the pipeline a few times to see if deqp-runner reports it as a flake? Thanks. Regards, Vignesh > > Thanks > > Abhinav >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Helen >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Can you let me know which way we need to go? >>>>> >>>>> Just in case I did post a v2 fixing this, >>>>> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/627276/ >>>>> >>>>> If thats the way to go, can you pls take a look? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> Abhinav >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Out of the 3 runs of the test, it passed 2/3 times and failed >>>>>> 1/3. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > So its fail % actually is 33.33% in that case. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I think I saw a Failure rate of 100% on >>>>>> msm-sm8350-hdk-flakes.txt and >>>>>> > mistook that as the rate at which flakes are seen. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Let me fix this up as 33% >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > Regards, >>>>>> > > Helen >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > > +# IGT Version: 1.28-ga73311079 >>>>>> > > > +# Linux Version: 6.12.0-rc2 >>>>>> > > > +kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > --- >>>>>> > > > base-commit: 798bb342e0416d846cf67f4725a3428f39bfb96b >>>>>> > > > change-id: 20241204-cursor_tor_skip-9d128dd62c4f >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > Best regards, >>>>>> > > > -- >>>>>> > > > Abhinav Kumar quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com> >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >>>>>>
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt b/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..18639853f18f --- /dev/null +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +# Board Name: msm-apq8016-db410c +# Failure Rate: 100 +# IGT Version: 1.28-ga73311079 +# Linux Version: 6.12.0-rc2 +kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo
From the jobs [1] and [2] of pipeline [3], its clear that kms_cursor_legacy@torture-bo is most certainly a flake and not a fail for apq8016. Mark the test accordingly to match the results. [1] : https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67676481 [2] : https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/jobs/67677430 [3]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/pipelines/1322770 Signed-off-by: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-apq8016-flakes.txt | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) --- base-commit: 798bb342e0416d846cf67f4725a3428f39bfb96b change-id: 20241204-cursor_tor_skip-9d128dd62c4f Best regards,