On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:00:53AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 03:43:05PM -0300, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: >>> > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> I'm confused what exactly this tests, since it seems to never fail ... fb.o #68030 >>> automated tests should have some checks for expected results. >>> >>> Also I'm not sure whether we want such ddx/X tests in igt ... actually it was your idea and I liked it ;) >> >> Whether or not it makes a good test, it is nice to have a repository of >> the little hacks we use for debugging. From little acorns mighty oaks >> grow. > > Agreed, but then it imo shouldn't be added to the default list of > targets of tests to run. Agreed. tbh I didn't realized I was doing that by adding it to TESTS_scripts > We already have a bunch of these scripts > added to EXTRA_DIST, I guess adding a new variable SCRIPTS would be > good. Do you think we need an extra directory for scripts like this? or just create this new SCRIPTS variable at Makefile.am? > -Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch -- Rodrigo Vivi Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
