On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 09:53:32PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 07:05:56PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Yeah, historically grown but we should try to be somewhat consistent. > > It helps with filtering testcases. > > I think you are going the wrong way, since the current consensus prefers > XCS naming. Well we can switch it over, but it should be somewhat consistent. And the glossary for common subtest names should be updated in the docs, too. At least for me these subtest patterns are fairly useful to get at a reasonable testcase selection for development. Might be that everyone else just laughs at prts, dunno. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
