[igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] intel-ci/xe-fast-feedback: Add xe_waitfence subtest for Xe run

[Kamil Konieczny]

Hi Daniel,
On 2023-11-24 at 15:04:03 +0100, Daniel Mrzyglod wrote:
> There is subtest which should be run in bat.
> Test is simple check of waitfence with provided
> engine class instance.

Please improve description and just name new subtest you added,
like:

Add xe_waitfence at engine to xe-fast-feedback.

Also improve subject, xe-fast-feedback is for Xe, no need to repeat,
so something like:

[PATCH i-g-t] intel-ci/xe-fast-feedback: Add xe_waitfence at engine

or

[PATCH i-g-t] intel-ci: Add xe_waitfence at engine to Xe BAT

+Cc Swati (discussion about what to write for CI subject)

> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Mrzyglod <daniel.t.mrzyglod at intel.com>
> ---
>  tests/intel-ci/xe-fast-feedback.testlist | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/intel-ci/xe-fast-feedback.testlist b/tests/intel-ci/xe-fast-feedback.testlist
> index 2a95bd037..ddf5bd208 100644
> --- a/tests/intel-ci/xe-fast-feedback.testlist
> +++ b/tests/intel-ci/xe-fast-feedback.testlist
> @@ -149,6 +149,7 @@ igt at xe_vm@munmap-style-unbind-userptr-inval-end
>  igt at xe_vm@munmap-style-unbind-userptr-inval-front
>  igt at xe_waitfence@abstime
>  igt at xe_waitfence@reltime
> +igt at xe_waitfence@engine

This should be before @reltime as we keep list in alphabetical order.

You may also stop CI testing to save CI time and resources as
this was already tested with your v1.

With above corrections:

Acked-by: Kamil Konieczny <kamil.konieczny at linux.intel.com>

Regards,
Kamil

>  igt at kms_addfb_basic@addfb25-4-tiled
>  igt at kms_addfb_basic@addfb25-bad-modifier
>  igt at kms_addfb_basic@addfb25-modifier-no-flag
> -- 
> 2.42.0
>