On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 07:21:59AM +0000, Sun, Yi wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:00:23AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 04:38:58PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 03:24:37PM +0000, Damien Lespiau wrote: > > > > > There are two ways to run tests, directly with make check/test or > > > > > through piglit. > > > > > > > > > > When IGT_SIMULATION is set to '1', we substitute the list of tests > > > > > in those two code paths with carefully selected tests. The stress > > > > > tests and other horrors are left to torture the real hardware as > > > > > they don't make too much sense in simulation. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau at intel.com> > > > > > > > > This feels a bit fragile since even just now I often fail to put a > > > > test newly converted to the subtest stuff into the right > > > > single/multi make target list. Also, this way we exclude a test by > > > > default, which also feels like the wrong way round (most of the > > > > tests we're adding aren't heavy stress-tests, but more excercise some > > corner-case). > > > > > > > > So what about a sprinkling > > > > > > > > drmtest_skip_on_simulation(); > > > > > > > > over the remaining testcases instead, which just calls exit(77);? > > > > Only caveat is that for subtests we need to put it into the right > > > > spot to not break subtest enumeration in piglit (it's a bit fragile). > > > > > > > > Cheers, Daniel > > > > > > I prefer Damien's explicit definitions in a file. It makes it much > > > easier to see exactly what's run, and add a test as needed. Since > > > simulation testing will always be a massive subset of the whole i-g-t > > > suite, and we'll probably only rarely add or remove a test, I think > > > it's not a big concern that we might miss a test. > > > > Imo that's the wrong approach, since most of the tests we've recently added > > exercise corner-cases of our code, and in a rather deterministic way. If we > > currently have too many tests to get through all of the useful ones in a day, we > > need more machines, not fewer tests. > > > > In the end we want to be able to run full piglit on all this stuff in simulation after > > all. Cc'ing Yi so he knows where I'm aiming at ;-) -Daniel > > > [Sun, Yi] So what's the conclusion, how can I do to solve the too long time issue? > I noticed Damien's patches aren't on the branch yet. > If we want to split all i-g-t test cases to different HAS, how can we split it? > Daniel, can you please advise Sun Yi since the solution I like has been shot down? -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center
