On ke, 2017-05-31 at 13:58 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 03:23:12PM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > I went through the gem_* tests from intel-gpu-tools and categorized > > them into roughly categories "X | X robustness | X performance" ready > > to be added to the feat_profile.json. > > > > Lets open a discussion which ones should go where. I tried to place a > > single test to under only one category and I'm kind of hopeful that > > we'll have the ability to add "depends_on" to create super features in > > the future, instead of placing a single test under multiple categories. > > > > I didn't check all the subtests nor wildcard matching with other tests, > > this is just all the test names placed under some categories. > > You seem to have assigned them exclusively to one category or another, > most tests belong to a few of these categories. More when you consider a > subtest may be targetting a completely different aspect. Yes, that's what I meant to say :) Subtests should probably be matched by another pattern like "\btiled\b", "\bflink\b" etc. Ultimately there would be a resolver which would re-assign the subtests: "Global objects" would then get: "include_subtests": "flink", Which would steal subtests with /\bflink\b/ from tests. Do we agree that one subtest would be assigned to one category only, or do you want to see duplication even at that level? Regards, Joonas -- Joonas Lahtinen Open Source Technology Center Intel Corporation _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
