drm: drm_vblank_cleanup: WARN when refcount > 0
Subsystems (3)
PATCH v2 1/2 drm: drm_vblank_cleanup: WARN when refcount > 0
Warn when refcount > 0 in drm_vblank_cleanup.
---
No change in v2.
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c +2 -0
@@ -405,6 +405,8 @@ void drm_vblank_cleanup(struct drm_device *dev)for (pipe =0 ; pipe < dev->num_crtcs; pipe++) {struct drm_vblank_crtc *vblank = &dev->vblank[pipe]; +WARN_ON (atomic_read (&vblank->refcount) >0 ); +WARN_ON (READ_ONCE (vblank->enabled) &&drm_core_check_feature (dev,DRIVER_MODESET ));
Signature · 6 lines
2.10.0 _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
PATCH v2 2/2 Test case for drm_vblank_cleanup refcount validation patch
In i915 driver unload drm_vblank_get is added to test whether drm_vblank_cleanup refcount validation patch is working.
---
Changes in v2:
Use drm_crtc_vblank_get instead of _put. In previous patch _put was wrongly used.
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c +7 -0
@@ -1373,6 +1373,13 @@ void i915_driver_unload(struct drm_device *dev)struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv =to_i915 (dev);struct pci_dev *pdev = dev_priv->drm.pdev; +enum pipe pipe; +for_each_pipe (dev_priv, pipe) { +struct intel_crtc *crtc =intel_get_crtc_for_pipe (dev_priv, + pipe); +drm_crtc_vblank_get (&crtc->base); + } +i915_driver_unregister (dev_priv);if (i915_gem_suspend (dev_priv))
Signature · 6 lines
2.10.0 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] Test case for drm_vblank_cleanup refcount validation patch
Hi All,
Quoted 31 lines · PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
In i915 driver unload
drm_vblank_getis added to test whetherdrm_vblank_cleanuprefcount validation patch is working.Signed-off-by PrasannaKumar Muralidharan <[email protected]>---
Changes in v2:
Usedrm_crtc_vblank_getinstead of_put. In previous patch_putwas wrongly used.drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c +7
-1@@ -1373,6 +1373,13 @@ void i915_driver_unload(struct drm_device *dev)struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv =to_i915 (dev);struct pci_dev *pdev = dev_priv->drm.pdev; +enum pipe pipe; +for_each_pipe (dev_priv, pipe) { +struct intel_crtc *crtc =intel_get_crtc_for_pipe (dev_priv, + pipe); +drm_crtc_vblank_get (&crtc->base); + } +i915_driver_unregister (dev_priv);if (i915_gem_suspend (dev_priv)) --
Quoted 2 lines
2.10.0
From https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_6167/fi-ilk-650/igt@[email protected]
it can be seen that this patch triggers warning when vblank->refcount
Quoted 1 line
0 in vblank cleanup. This tests patch 1 successfully.
I think patch 1 is good to go.
Thanks,
PrasannaKumar
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 2/2] Test case for drm_vblank_cleanup refcount validation patch
Quoted 40 lines · PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
Hi All,
Quoted 31 lines · PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
In i915 driver unload
drm_vblank_getis added to test whetherdrm_vblank_cleanuprefcount validation patch is working.Signed-off-by PrasannaKumar Muralidharan <[email protected]>---
Changes in v2:
Usedrm_crtc_vblank_getinstead of_put. In previous patch_putwas wrongly used.drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c +7
-1@@ -1373,6 +1373,13 @@ void i915_driver_unload(struct drm_device *dev)struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv =to_i915 (dev);struct pci_dev *pdev = dev_priv->drm.pdev; +enum pipe pipe; +for_each_pipe (dev_priv, pipe) { +struct intel_crtc *crtc =intel_get_crtc_for_pipe (dev_priv, + pipe); +drm_crtc_vblank_get (&crtc->base); + } +i915_driver_unregister (dev_priv);if (i915_gem_suspend (dev_priv)) --Quoted 2 lines
2.10.0
From https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_6167/fi-ilk-650/igt@[email protected]
it can be seen that this patch triggers warning whenvblank->refcount
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
0 in vblank cleanup. This tests patch 1 successfully.
I think patch 1 is good to go.
Yeah it works, but we don't know whether it breaks anything yet. Can you pls resubmit just the first patch? Abusing CI was just an idea to get it fully tested, before we can merge it still needs to pass full CI. We just had an issue 2 weeks ago where CI blew up because an untested patch landed that broke every test :-/
-Daniel
Signature · 7 lines
Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] Test case for drm_vblank_cleanup refcount validation patch
Hi Daniel,
Quoted 45 lines · Daniel Vetter
Quoted 40 lines · PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
Hi All,
Quoted 31 lines · PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
In i915 driver unload
drm_vblank_getis added to test whetherdrm_vblank_cleanuprefcount validation patch is working.Signed-off-by PrasannaKumar Muralidharan <[email protected]>---
Changes in v2:
Usedrm_crtc_vblank_getinstead of_put. In previous patch_putwas wrongly used.drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c +7
-1@@ -1373,6 +1373,13 @@ void i915_driver_unload(struct drm_device *dev)struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv =to_i915 (dev);struct pci_dev *pdev = dev_priv->drm.pdev; +enum pipe pipe; +for_each_pipe (dev_priv, pipe) { +struct intel_crtc *crtc =intel_get_crtc_for_pipe (dev_priv, + pipe); +drm_crtc_vblank_get (&crtc->base); + } +i915_driver_unregister (dev_priv);if (i915_gem_suspend (dev_priv)) --Quoted 2 lines
2.10.0
From https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_6167/fi-ilk-650/igt@[email protected]
it can be seen that this patch triggers warning whenvblank->refcountQuoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
0 in vblank cleanup. This tests patch 1 successfully.
I think patch 1 is good to go.
Quoted 10 lines
Yeah it works, but we don't know whether it breaks anything yet. Can you pls resubmit just the first patch? Abusing CI was just an idea to get it fully tested, before we can merge it still needs to pass full CI. We just had an issue 2 weeks ago where CI blew up because an untested patch landed that broke every test :-/
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
I have already sent that patch alone. Please look at
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/184866/.
Regards,
PrasannaKumar
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] Test case for drm_vblank_cleanup refcount validation patch
Quoted 59 lines · PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
Hi Daniel,
Quoted 45 lines · Daniel Vetter
Quoted 40 lines · PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
Hi All,
Quoted 31 lines · PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
In i915 driver unload
drm_vblank_getis added to test whetherdrm_vblank_cleanuprefcount validation patch is working.Signed-off-by PrasannaKumar Muralidharan <[email protected]>---
Changes in v2:
Usedrm_crtc_vblank_getinstead of_put. In previous patch_putwas wrongly used.drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c +7
-1@@ -1373,6 +1373,13 @@ void i915_driver_unload(struct drm_device *dev)struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv =to_i915 (dev);struct pci_dev *pdev = dev_priv->drm.pdev; +enum pipe pipe; +for_each_pipe (dev_priv, pipe) { +struct intel_crtc *crtc =intel_get_crtc_for_pipe (dev_priv, + pipe); +drm_crtc_vblank_get (&crtc->base); + } +i915_driver_unregister (dev_priv);if (i915_gem_suspend (dev_priv)) --Quoted 2 lines
2.10.0
From https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_6167/fi-ilk-650/igt@[email protected]
it can be seen that this patch triggers warning whenvblank->refcountQuoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
0 in vblank cleanup. This tests patch 1 successfully.
I think patch 1 is good to go.
Quoted 10 lines
Yeah it works, but we don't know whether it breaks anything yet. Can you pls resubmit just the first patch? Abusing CI was just an idea to get it fully tested, before we can merge it still needs to pass full CI. We just had an issue 2 weeks ago where CI blew up because an untested patch landed that broke every test :-/
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
Quoted 2 lines
I have already sent that patch alone. Please look at
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/184866/.
Seems to fail in CI:
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/32648/
I guess you need to test this on a local box somewhere to figure out what's wrong.
-Daniel
Signature · 7 lines
Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] Test case for drm_vblank_cleanup refcount validation patch
Hi Daniel,
Quoted 64 lines · Daniel Vetter
Quoted 59 lines · PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
Hi Daniel,
Quoted 45 lines · Daniel Vetter
Quoted 40 lines · PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
Hi All,
Quoted 31 lines · PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
In i915 driver unload
drm_vblank_getis added to test whetherdrm_vblank_cleanuprefcount validation patch is working.Signed-off-by PrasannaKumar Muralidharan <[email protected]>---
Changes in v2:
Usedrm_crtc_vblank_getinstead of_put. In previous patch_putwas wrongly used.drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c +7
-1@@ -1373,6 +1373,13 @@ void i915_driver_unload(struct drm_device *dev)struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv =to_i915 (dev);struct pci_dev *pdev = dev_priv->drm.pdev; +enum pipe pipe; +for_each_pipe (dev_priv, pipe) { +struct intel_crtc *crtc =intel_get_crtc_for_pipe (dev_priv, + pipe); +drm_crtc_vblank_get (&crtc->base); + } +i915_driver_unregister (dev_priv);if (i915_gem_suspend (dev_priv)) --Quoted 2 lines
2.10.0
From https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_6167/fi-ilk-650/igt@[email protected]
it can be seen that this patch triggers warning whenvblank->refcountQuoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
0 in vblank cleanup. This tests patch 1 successfully.
I think patch 1 is good to go.
Quoted 10 lines
Yeah it works, but we don't know whether it breaks anything yet. Can you pls resubmit just the first patch? Abusing CI was just an idea to get it fully tested, before we can merge it still needs to pass full CI. We just had an issue 2 weeks ago where CI blew up because an untested patch landed that broke every test :-/
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.chQuoted 2 lines
I have already sent that patch alone. Please look at
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/184866/.
Quoted 6 lines
Seems to fail in CI:
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/32648/
I guess you need to test this on a local box somewhere to figure out what's wrong.
My patch is supposed to catch problem with drivers. It warns when vblank refcount is non-zero in drm_vblank_cleanup call. From CI log it can be seen that warning being triggered. I feel that my patch is exposing existing issue.
If I misinterpreted something please let me know.
Thanks,
PrasannaKumar
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] Test case for drm_vblank_cleanup refcount validation patch
Quoted 74 lines · PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
Hi Daniel,
Quoted 64 lines · Daniel Vetter
Quoted 59 lines · PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
Hi Daniel,
Quoted 45 lines · Daniel Vetter
Quoted 40 lines · PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
Hi All,
Quoted 31 lines · PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
In i915 driver unload
drm_vblank_getis added to test whetherdrm_vblank_cleanuprefcount validation patch is working.Signed-off-by PrasannaKumar Muralidharan <[email protected]>---
Changes in v2:
Usedrm_crtc_vblank_getinstead of_put. In previous patch_putwas wrongly used.drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c +7
-1@@ -1373,6 +1373,13 @@ void i915_driver_unload(struct drm_device *dev)struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv =to_i915 (dev);struct pci_dev *pdev = dev_priv->drm.pdev; +enum pipe pipe; +for_each_pipe (dev_priv, pipe) { +struct intel_crtc *crtc =intel_get_crtc_for_pipe (dev_priv, + pipe); +drm_crtc_vblank_get (&crtc->base); + } +i915_driver_unregister (dev_priv);if (i915_gem_suspend (dev_priv)) --Quoted 2 lines
2.10.0
From https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_6167/fi-ilk-650/igt@[email protected]
it can be seen that this patch triggers warning whenvblank->refcountQuoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
0 in vblank cleanup. This tests patch 1 successfully.
I think patch 1 is good to go.
Quoted 10 lines
Yeah it works, but we don't know whether it breaks anything yet. Can you pls resubmit just the first patch? Abusing CI was just an idea to get it fully tested, before we can merge it still needs to pass full CI. We just had an issue 2 weeks ago where CI blew up because an untested patch landed that broke every test :-/
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.chQuoted 2 lines
I have already sent that patch alone. Please look at
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/184866/.Quoted 6 lines
Seems to fail in CI:
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/32648/
I guess you need to test this on a local box somewhere to figure out what's wrong.
Quoted 6 lines
My patch is supposed to catch problem with drivers. It warns when vblank refcount is non-zero in
drm_vblank_cleanupcall. From CI log it can be seen that warning being triggered. I feel that my patch is exposing existing issue.If I misinterpreted something please let me know.
This is probably what's happening, but I can't merge a patch that breaks CI. So we need to track down that issue before merging. -Daniel
Signature · 7 lines
Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 2/2] Test case for drm_vblank_cleanup refcount validation patch
Hi Daniel,
Quoted 10 lines · Daniel Vetter
Quoted 6 lines · PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
My patch is supposed to catch problem with drivers. It warns when vblank refcount is non-zero in
drm_vblank_cleanupcall. From CI log it can be seen that warning being triggered. I feel that my patch is exposing existing issue.If I misinterpreted something please let me know.
This is probably what's happening, but I can't merge a patch that breaks CI. So we need to track down that issue before merging.
I understand. Being new to DRM subsystem I don't know if I can contribute in finding the issue. I would be able to help if I could get some guidance.
Thanks,
PrasannaKumar
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 2/2] Test case for drm_vblank_cleanup refcount validation patch
Quoted 9 lines · PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
Hi Daniel,
Quoted 6 lines · Daniel Vetter
Quoted 5 lines · PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
My patch is supposed to catch problem with drivers. It warns when vblank refcount is non-zero in
drm_vblank_cleanupcall. From CI log it can be seen that warning being triggered. I feel that my patch is exposing existing issue.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
If I misinterpreted something please let me know.
This is probably what's happening, but I can't merge a patch that breaks CI. So we need to track down that issue before merging.
I understand. Being new to DRM subsystem I don't know if I can contribute in finding the issue. I would be able to help if I could get some guidance.
If you have an intel laptop anywhere at hand that you could use to reproduce the issue, that would be a good start.
Then go through the setup for the kms/drm validation suite:
https://dri.freedesktop.org/docs/drm/gpu/drm-uapi.html#testing-and-validation
That should allow you to locally reproduce the issue (it seems to affect many machines, so I'd assume it doesn't matter which one you have).
Once you can reproduce it should be doable to figure out where we leak this reference (but usually it's a bit of hard work).
Btw I discussed your patch a bit on irc, a first step would be to also print the refcount when it's leaked, not just warn about it. Knowing how many references are leaked is sometimes a good hint about what's going on. -Daniel
Signature · 7 lines
Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] Test case for drm_vblank_cleanup refcount validation patch
Hi Daniel,
Quoted 15 lines · Daniel Vetter
Quoted 14 lines · PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
Hi Daniel,
Quoted 10 lines · Daniel Vetter
Quoted 6 lines · PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
My patch is supposed to catch problem with drivers. It warns when vblank refcount is non-zero in
drm_vblank_cleanupcall. From CI log it can be seen that warning being triggered. I feel that my patch is exposing existing issue.If I misinterpreted something please let me know.
This is probably what's happening, but I can't merge a patch that breaks CI. So we need to track down that issue before merging.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
I understand. Being new to DRM subsystem I don't know if I can contribute in finding the issue. I would be able to help if I could get some guidance.
If you have an intel laptop anywhere at hand that you could use to reproduce the issue, that would be a good start.
I do have one but it is my primary machine.
Quoted 6 lines
Then go through the setup for the kms/drm validation suite:
https://dri.freedesktop.org/docs/drm/gpu/drm-uapi.html#testing-and-validation
That should allow you to locally reproduce the issue (it seems to affect many machines, so I'd assume it doesn't matter which one you have).
If this setup is going to affect my normal workflow setup I would prefer not to use it.
Quoted 2 lines
Once you can reproduce it should be doable to figure out where we leak this reference (but usually it's a bit of hard work).
Anyway I will give it a try and see how far I can go.
Quoted 3 lines
Btw I discussed your patch a bit on irc, a first step would be to also print the refcount when it's leaked, not just warn about it. Knowing how many references are leaked is sometimes a good hint about what's going on.
I will send a v4.
Quoted 5 lines
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
Regards,
PrasannaKumar
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Patchwork
CI✗ Fi.CI.BAT: warning for series starting with [v2,1/2] drm: drm_vblank_cleanup: WARN when refcount > 0
In reply to PrasannaKumar Muralidharan== Series Details ==
== Series Details ==
Series: series starting with [v2,1/2] drm: drm_vblank_cleanup: WARN when refcount > 0
URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/32561/
State : warning
== Summary ==
Series 32561v1 series starting with [v2,1/2] drm: drm_vblank_cleanup: WARN when refcount > 0
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/32561/revisions/1/mbox/
Test gem_exec_reloc:
Subgroup basic-gtt-active:
dmesg-warn -> PASS (fi-gdg-551) fdo#102582 +5
Subgroup basic-write-cpu-active:
skip -> PASS (fi-gdg-551)
Subgroup basic-write-gtt-active:
skip -> PASS (fi-gdg-551) fdo#102582
Subgroup basic-softpin:
skip -> PASS (fi-gdg-551)
Test gem_linear_blits:
Subgroup basic:
skip -> PASS (fi-gdg-551)
Test gem_render_linear_blits:
Subgroup basic:
skip -> PASS (fi-gdg-551)
Test gem_render_tiled_blits:
Subgroup basic:
skip -> PASS (fi-gdg-551)
Test gem_sync:
Subgroup basic-all:
skip -> PASS (fi-gdg-551)
Subgroup basic-each:
skip -> PASS (fi-gdg-551)
Subgroup basic-many-each:
skip -> PASS (fi-gdg-551)
Subgroup basic-store-each:
skip -> PASS (fi-gdg-551)
Test gem_tiled_blits:
Subgroup basic:
skip -> PASS (fi-gdg-551)
Test gem_tiled_fence_blits:
Subgroup basic:
skip -> PASS (fi-gdg-551)
Test gem_wait:
Subgroup basic-busy-all:
skip -> PASS (fi-gdg-551)
Subgroup basic-wait-all:
skip -> PASS (fi-gdg-551)
Subgroup basic-await-all:
skip -> PASS (fi-gdg-551)
Test kms_busy:
Subgroup basic-flip-a:
skip -> PASS (fi-gdg-551) fdo#102654 +1
Test kms_cursor_legacy:
Subgroup basic-busy-flip-before-cursor-legacy:
skip -> PASS (fi-gdg-551) fdo#102618
Test drv_module_reload:
Subgroup basic-reload:
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-blb-e6850)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-bwr-2160)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-elk-e7500)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-ilk-650)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-snb-2520m)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-snb-2600)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-ivb-3520m)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-ivb-3770)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-byt-j1900)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-byt-n2820)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-hsw-4770)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-hsw-4770r)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-bdw-5557u)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-bdw-gvtdvm)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-bsw-n3050)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-skl-6260u)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-skl-6700hq)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-skl-6700k)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-skl-6770hq)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-skl-gvtdvm)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-bxt-dsi)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-bxt-j4205)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-kbl-7500u)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-kbl-7560u)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-kbl-7567u)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-kbl-r)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-glk-1)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-glk-dsi)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-cnl-y)
Subgroup basic-no-display:
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-gdg-551) fdo#102707 +1
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-blb-e6850)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-bwr-2160)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-elk-e7500)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-ilk-650)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-snb-2520m)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-snb-2600)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-ivb-3520m)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-ivb-3770)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-byt-j1900)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-byt-n2820)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-hsw-4770)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-hsw-4770r)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-bdw-5557u)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-bdw-gvtdvm)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-bsw-n3050)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-skl-6260u)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-skl-6700hq)
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-skl-6700k)WARNING: Long output truncated
bcee836068d98bd2aaa5d64124c5994acce6a6c4 drm-tip: 2017y-10m-24d-15h-00m-14s UTC integration manifest 02a83286f4de Test case for drm_vblank_cleanup refcount validation patch195020f9c227 drm: drm_vblank_cleanup: WARN when refcount > 0
== Logs ==
For more details see: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_6167/
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx