From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4630B6E072 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 07:42:06 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 10:42:59 +0300 From: Petri Latvala Message-ID: References: <20210407030952.44288-1-tejaskumarx.surendrakumar.upadhyay@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210407030952.44288-1-tejaskumarx.surendrakumar.upadhyay@intel.com> Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [i-g-t] test/i915/basic-wide-active: set max relocation limit List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: igt-dev-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "igt-dev" To: Tejas Upadhyay Cc: igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org, hariom.pandey@intel.com List-ID: On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 08:39:52AM +0530, Tejas Upadhyay wrote: > practically its highly unlike to get as many relocations which > basic-wide-active test is testing thus setting and adjusting > max limit and count to avoid failures on legacy platforms like KBL. The previous such patch against gem_exec_reloc had an unaddressed objection and it was still merged. If you don't agree with the objection, you still need to explain how in your view it's not valid. This commit message quite clearly says the purpose of this patch is to ignore failures, improving passrate metrics instead of driver health. The same objection to this patch applies as far as I can see, so nak on this. -- Petri Latvala _______________________________________________ igt-dev mailing list igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/igt-dev