On 17/08/17 00:50, Daniel Vetter wrote:
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
We have this on our to do list. I was thinking if we create a list of
tests that need attention the 2 val teams can work through the list to
make the fixes.
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
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
