On pe, 2016-10-07 at 10:38 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > The "change" to use bash just reflects current reality. All the changes > here look simple and sane, and immediately improve the results. The work > is already done, no use blocking them because someone might eventually > rewrite them in C. (And it will be a PITA to write the module reload > test in C, so I wouldn't hold my breath.) > The scripts are really simple, most of the scripts even use POSIX sh compliant constructs but just the wrong shebang. And sometimes some a advanced bash feature here and there which could be replaced easily. > For the series, > > Reviewed-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> > > > PS. When I look at IGT and the macro/setjmp/longjmp magic to create the > test/subtest/fixture infrastructure, making the tests look like they've > been written in some extended version of C, I have to question whether C > really is the right language for the tests. libdrm python bindings and > python, anyone? My patches to convert away from bash were to allow running the tests in minimal initramfs environment where the kernel + IGT would be a standalone bzImage suitable for netbooting, but we can go to another direction too, and lets add Java as runtime requirement for I-G-T! Regards, Joonas <plaintext>I'm against converting to bash/python for no benefit.</plaintext> -- Joonas Lahtinen Open Source Technology Center Intel Corporation _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
