On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 11:40 AM Rob Clark robdclark@gmail.com wrote:
It is missing in this revision of the RFC, but the intention is to have the gitlab-ci.yml point to a specific commit SHA in the gfx-ci/drm-ci[1] tree, to solve the problem of keeping the results in sync with the expectations. Ie. a kernel commit would control moving to a new version of i-g-t (and eventually deqp and/or piglit), and at the same time make any necessary updates in the expectations files.
Wouldn't it then be better to just have the expectation files in the ci tree too?
The kernel tree might have just the expected *failures* listed, if there are any. Presumably the ci tree has to have the expected results anyway, so what's the advantage of listing non-failures?
Linus