Created attachment 21153 [details] xorg.0.log System Environment: -------------------------- Libdrm: (master)9583c099b4a08b49e03f7b461c344b6d277fd262 Mesa_stable: (intel-2008-q4)154a9e5317f890618932cea0129ef887e16baf84 Xserver_stable: (server-1.6-branch)d6129ebf8dad9cfbc13dc8db7c780b023bf9a60b Xf86_video_intel_stable:(xf86-video-intel-2.6-branch) 005127b5825993d2fe3c36e3a01a37ea6904739e GEM kernel (for-airlied)8b1fae4e4200388b64dd88065639413cb3f1051c Bug detailed description: ------------------------- some glean cases such as readpixPerf run failed on all our platform (i915 i965)except G45. Reproduce steps: ---------------- 1.xinit& 2. run glean cases (readpixPerf)
Created attachment 21154 [details] xorg conf file
Are the video modes of the machines running readpixPerf all at least 1200 pixels tall? If it doesn't get a 1000-tall window the test gives invalid results.
(In reply to comment #2) > Are the video modes of the machines running readpixPerf all at least 1200 > pixels tall? If it doesn't get a 1000-tall window the test gives invalid > results. > Wait for Haien to answer this question. And I'm considering to make glean/readpixPerf detect screen resolution. Is there any reason to hardcode 1000x1000 ?
(In reply to comment #2) > Are the video modes of the machines running readpixPerf all at least 1200 > pixels tall? If it doesn't get a 1000-tall window the test gives invalid > results. > only three machines meet the requirement. and the three machines all pass. but same question as comment #3: why to hardcode 1000x1000?
So this is glean test case issue. I'm closing this bug, and Shuang will follow up the case issue.
Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.