On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 05:30:08PM -0700, Kelvin Gardiner wrote: > > > On 16/08/17 07:04, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Petri Latvala <petri.latvala@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 02:04:51PM -0700, Kelvin Gardiner wrote: > > > > Added an initial list of fast feedback tests for simulation > > > > environments. > > > > > > Merged, thanks. > > > > Yes I'm a bit late, just noticed this fly by: How does this interact > > wit igt_skip_on_simulation? What's the significance of this list, are > > we going to see CI run these? Have platform owners acked this as the > > PO list? > > This is a list of tests seen to be good in a simulation environment. It is > meant as a starting point to have a reference list, to which we can add. seen by whom? That was pretty much my question/concern here. I chatted with Petri, and apparently this list is also used by the helsinki CI, and that should have been noted. But just today I've seen a mail fly by that e.g. Rodrigo has a power-on testlist. Which I guess is again something else, but doesn't help making things less confusing. I mean you can add whatever you want to igt and let it rot there, but if you expect platform owners, test engineers and developers to support it, we need a consensus. Otherwise it won't really happen, and this patch here looked like that consensus engineering work wasn't done (and that's really the hard work, not the patch itself). > With regards to igt_skip_on_simulation, some times this is erroneously > included in a test, other times it is missing, some tests need to reduce > iterations etc, (where this still give a valid test) when this is set (as > some already do). In short some work is needed to clean up the use of this > flag. So ... who's doing that work? Or are we just going to let 2 half-solutions rot side-by-side? -Daniel > > > > > VPG validation is just one team here, imo adding something like this > > needs a lot more buy-in. Or we're just once again adding a list no one > > is actually using, which is pointless. Imo if we can't get acks from > > platform owners that they are actively using this list, and CI that > > they are also actively using this list, then it should be removed > > again. > > > > Thanks, Daniel > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Petri Latvala > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Intel-gfx mailing list > > > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx > > > > > > -- 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
