On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 09:54:33AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:45:47AM +0300, Petri Latvala wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 08:26:17PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > The inter-engine synchronisation (with and without semaphores) is > > > equally exercised by gem_sync, so leave gem_storedw_loop out of the > > > "quick" set. > > > > > > How equally is "equally"? Is the test actually redundant, should it be > > removed altogether? > > The stress patterns exhibited by the test are identical to others in > BAT. The accuracy tests are covered by others in BAT. The actual flow > (edge coverage) will be subtly different and therefore the test is still > unique and may catch future bugs not caught by others. But as far as BAT > goes the likelihood of this catching something not caught by others > within BAT is very very small. But given that we have 50k gem tests in full igt, does it really make sense to keep it? Imo there's not much point in keeping around every minute combinatorial variation if it means we can never run the full set of testcases. Some serious trimming of the herd is probably called for. Joonas/Tvrtko/Mika and other gem folks: What's your stance here? -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
