On 19/07/16 13:49, Chris Wilson wrote:
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
Right,
Let me resend a patch for just pipe-A then.
I haven't seen failures on one pipe but not the other.
-
Lionel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
