On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 03:59:24PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > 2015-10-26 15:30 GMT-02:00 David Weinehall <david.weinehall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 02:44:18PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > >> 2015-10-26 12:59 GMT-02:00 David Weinehall <david.weinehall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:50:46AM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > >> > > >> > [snip] > >> > > >> >> It's not clear to me, please clarify: now the tests that were > >> >> previously completely hidden will be listed in --list-subtests and > >> >> will be shown as skipped during normal runs? > >> > > >> > Yes. Daniel and I discussed this and he thought listing all test > >> > cases, even the slow ones, would not be an issue, since QA should > >> > be running the default set not the full list > >> > (and for that matter, shouldn't QA know what they are doing too? :P). > >> > >> If that's the case, I really think your patch should not touch > >> kms_frontbuffer_tracking.c. The hidden subtests should not appear on > >> the list. People shouldn't even have to ask themselves why they are > >> getting 800 skips from a single testcase. Those are only for debugging > >> purposes. > > > > Fair enough. I'll try to come up with a resonable way to exclude them > > from the list in a generic manner. Because that's the whole point of > > this exercise -- to standardise this rather than have every test case > > implement its own method of choosing whether or not to run all tests. > > Maybe instead of marking these tests as SKIP we could use some other > flag. That would avoid the confusion between "skipped because some > condition was not match but the test is useful" vs "skipped because > the test is unnecessary". I'd prefer a method that wouldn't require patching piglit. Regards, David _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
