Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> writes: > 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? No strong stances. But I really dont see the problem here from gem dev point of view. Only the maintenance burden of keeping latent/inactive testcases? Having more than we can possible run is a positive problem. We can pick more berries to basket instead of planting bushes. I throw this back by asking what is 'full igt'? -Mika > -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 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
