On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 01:21:23PM +0100, Lionel Landwerlin wrote: > On 19/07/16 12:42, Chris Wilson wrote: > >On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 08:48:11AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >>On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 03:00:59PM +0100, Lionel Landwerlin wrote: > >>>Signed-off-by: Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwerlin@xxxxxxxxx> > >>Do we have the time for those in the BAT budget? > >Do we not? It has been demonstrated that people notice when gamma is > >broken, can we afford to risk repeating this bug? > > > >(Or in other news, where are all the new QA bugs from failing tests? > >Seems like we are missing some bug reports from igt added to show off > >bugs.) > >-Chris > > > It's about 35s to run this test : > real 0m34.352s > user 0m0.972s > sys 0m1.626s > > Knowing that we repeat the same tests across different pipes (so for > it would only take a third of that time if we were to just test pipe > A). If one test is likely to catch 99.999% of the bugs, then just add that one test to bat. > I don't have a sense of the budget, is that too much already? Oh, we've overshot the budget by 200%. Deciding which tests are more important than others, or whether that budget is unrealistic requires holistic knowledge i.e. our maintainer overlords. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
