On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 04:41:02PM -0400, Gustavo Padovan wrote: > 2016-08-24 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx>: > > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 01:56:02PM -0400, robert.foss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > From: Robert Foss <robert.foss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > This series implements the sw_sync test and the lib/sw_sync helper functions > > > for said test. > > > > > > Gustavo Padovans sw_sync series was just de-staged in > > > gregkh-staging/staging-next [1], and this test is targeted at verifying the > > > functionality implemented in that series. > > > > > > The sw_sync subtests range from very basic tests of the sw_sync functionality, > > > to stress testing and randomized tests. > > > > > > [1] http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging.git/ > > > > This seems to be patches against igt (but the series is lacking the i-g-t- > > subject tag per CONTRIBUTING). I'm ok with that, but I thought the idea > > was to merge these testcases into the kernel's selftests? Did the plan > > change? > > We still have the tests for kernel's selftests and the plan is to > upstream them but I think getting complete tests explicit fencing > infrastructure in i-g-t is good idea too. We work on more complex tests > in there and leave kselftest with the basic tests from the initial > patchset for the sw_sync kselftest. I'm perfectly happy if i-g-t becomes the canonical location for all things gfx (kernel) testing. Just wondered whether we have a change of plans here or not. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
