Skip to content

Conversation

@sarnex
Copy link
Contributor

@sarnex sarnex commented Jan 10, 2025

It's failing in postcommit.

@sarnex sarnex marked this pull request as ready for review January 10, 2025 15:12
@sarnex sarnex requested a review from a team as a code owner January 10, 2025 15:12
@aelovikov-intel
Copy link
Contributor

Any idea why/when it started to fail? With these generic issue info I'm afraid we might be losing crucial information when regressions happen.

@sarnex
Copy link
Contributor Author

sarnex commented Jan 10, 2025

The first commit where I see it failing (it's sporadaic btw) is ac9e5d9, but since it's sporadic I have no idea if that actually caused it.

My stance tends to be as CI maintainers we should unbreak the CI ASAP and let code/test owners do the actual technical investigation. Of course if we have an idea of what caused it or some relevant info we should add it, but I would rather we not do any advanced analysis, here I only notice the above pattern with that commit. I'll add any patterns I see in future changes like this, thanks.

@aelovikov-intel
Copy link
Contributor

My stance tends to be as CI maintainers we should unbreak the CI ASAP and let code/test owners do the actual technical investigation

Unfortunately, that only works in theory...

Comment on lines 7 to 8
// UNSUPPORTED: accelerator
// UNSUPPORTED-TRACKER: https://github.com/intel/llvm/issues/16589
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this is just the existing oneapi-src/unified-runtime#2440 above. fpga/cpu share most of the implementation, and the flakyness matches the behavior described there.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ok, ill close my issue and use this tracker, thanks

Signed-off-by: Sarnie, Nick <[email protected]>
@uditagarwal97
Copy link
Contributor

Any idea why/when it started to fail? With these generic issue info I'm afraid we might be losing crucial information when regressions happen.

I believe it started failing two days ago when this test was re-enabled in #16544.
I think we can close this PR since @rafbiels has another open PR #16588 to disable this test on OpenCL devices.

@sarnex
Copy link
Contributor Author

sarnex commented Jan 10, 2025

Nice find!

@sarnex sarnex closed this Jan 10, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants