On 21/07/2017 11:36, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-07-21 11:20:05)
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
[snip]
--- a/tests/gem_concurrent_all.c
+++ b/tests/gem_concurrent_all.c
@@ -1492,47 +1492,47 @@ run_mode(const char *prefix,
igt_subtest_group {
igt_fixture p->require();
- igt_subtest_f("%s-%s-%s-sanitycheck0%s%s", prefix, mode->name, p->prefix, suffix, h->suffix) {
+ igt_gem_stress_subtest_f("", "%s-%s-%s-sanitycheck0%s%s", prefix, mode->name, p->prefix, suffix, h->suffix) {
They are not all stress tests. So you want to be able to build the tags
dynamically... Similarly they offer different types of "stress", you
probably don't want to lump the hang tests in amongst thes plain
concurrency tests, and you probably want the swapping tests separated
etc. Stress is missing the point.
Dynamic tags are doable. If you just wanted to include "stress"
dynamically current RFC can already do that.
igt_gem_subtest_f(is_stress ? "stress" : "", name, ...)
If you wanted a dynamic set of multiple tags that could be added as well
I guess. Like a flag based control of "stress", "swapping", "hang",
"basic", or something. How nice or ugly API depends on the actual
requirements.
Or if you think that the test lists are a better way to handle all this
then that is also fine by me.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
