On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 09:09:34PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > Quoting Arkadiusz Hiler (2019-11-07 17:38:20) > > We don't want you to translate C into English, we want you to provide a bit of > > that extra information that you would have put in the comments anyway. > > The comments should exist and are _inline_ with the code. And I encourage doing so. Detailed comments what this particular non-obvious chunk of code is doing are always welcome. > In all the examples of igt_describe() I have seen, it is nowhere near > the code so is useless; the information conveyed does not assist > anyone in diagnosing or debugging the problem, so I yet to understand > how it helps. They are supposed to document not the implementation but what is the grand idea behind a given subtest, so they are on a subtest level (or a group of subtests), which is our basic testing unit - this is what fails in CI, this is what you execute locally to reproduce the issue. Can you truly debug an issue or understand what the failure means without knowing what the test is supposed to prove? A lot of people here have struggled with this and often it takes a lot of time and requires advanced archeology with `git blame` hoping that there is at least one detailed enough commit message in there. If not then talking to people and relying on our tribal knowledge is required. As I have mentioned - getting the bigger picture from implementation details is hard. I get that you are not affected by this, but please do not deny the others. > What is more useful, a link to the kernel coverage of the test and > link to the test source code, or waffle? > -Chris Those things are not exclusive. Coverage is extremely useful metric, source code is where the action happens but some higher-level explanations and waffles can coexist peacefully and make many lives much more pleasant. -- Cheers, Arek _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
