On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 08:55:40PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Damien Lespiau > <damien.lespiau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 11:49:43AM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote: > >> > Only in the make target he created, not in piglit itself. Imo we should > >> > have all the testrunner logic in one place, i.e. in the piglit sources. > >> > -Daniel > >> > >> Damien, can you comment? I could have sworn you said something different > >> on IRC. It sounded like exactly what I wanted. > > > > What Daniel says is correct, the check is part of the runner wrapper, > > not piglit itself. > > > > I'd rather have a environement check up-front and I don't mind where it > > lives (igt Vs piglit). > > The problem is that generating the testlist (or printing the commands) > is a feature QA actually relies on. I also use it occasionally to > quickly test igt library changes. So we can't bail that early. My > patch bails fairly late, but I didn't see a better spot. > -Daniel I'm confused then about how this really improves my current situation. -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
