Hey, Op 12-01-17 om 11:28 schreef Mika Kahola: > On Thu, 2017-01-12 at 11:11 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >> Op 30-12-16 om 13:00 schreef Mika Kahola: >>> This test case adds TEST_ONLY flag to the following test cases to >>> test >>> atomic commit correctness. >>> >>> - kms_plane_multiple >>> - kms_atomic_transitions >>> - kms_plane_scaling >>> - kms_rotation_crc >>> >>> The test randomly selects one of the above test cases and tests >>> atomic >>> commit. If the test fails with TEST_ONLY flag the real deal atomic >>> commit >>> is executed and the outcome is verified. >>> >>> The test runs by default for 64 iterations. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Mika Kahola <mika.kahola@xxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> tests/Makefile.sources | 1 + >>> tests/kms_test_only.c | 455 >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 2 files changed, 456 insertions(+) >>> create mode 100644 tests/kms_test_only.c >> Hey, >> >> What does this test add? > This is for VIZ-6956. The idea here is to test atomic commits with > TEST_ONLY first, and it that fails we try to commit in real. >> Any test should pass with PASS. This test retrying failed test-only >> tests won't add much there. No test should ever fail. > That's my thought also. You could argue whether or not this test adds > any value. In my mind, this test only tests if TEST_ONLY flag is > behaving ok :) But you can already compare test passes vs test fails. There's no need for a separate test because any test failing should already be investigated. I don't think a test that tests another test is useful, we already have infrastructure for that. :-) ~Maarten _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
