[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/8] lib: Introduce drmtest_skip_on_simulation()

[Ben Widawsky]

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 09:18:34AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 16:19:07 +0100
> Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau at intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > This will allow us to explicitely blacklist tests we don't want to run
> > on simulation.

I agree with Jesse on this. Mostly what I've wanted is an "opt-in"
approach as opposed to an "opt-out" one. Such a thing is better
controlled via a Makefile target, or separate script. Generally I loathe
the idea of a separate script, but in a case like simulation where I'm
thinking we may want to impose higher level timeouts via kill... maybe
it's not so bad.

> 
> So FWIW I'll reiterate that I'd prefer to manage this in either the
> Makefile target for the tests (e.g. have a single_kernel_sim_tests or
> somesuch), or separate scripts altogether for running the different
> types of tests, with specific subsets for running on simulation.
> 

> Having to sprinkle skip_on_simulation into the actual tests seems like
> duplicated effort across every test.

More importantly, it's too easy to forget to add, or not know when it's
relevant to add. "Doesn't scale" as Daniel likes to say.

> 
> For the cases where the args or iterations differ, it might be better
> to simply take an argv for the values, and have the sim vs. full
> scripts pass different values.

Time to develop our own programming language with for_each semantics :D

I'm okay with what we ended up on the iterators. It's somewhat ugly, but
I couldn't come up with anything less ugly, and the argv thing I think
just won't work well for some of the weirder tests.


> 
> -- 
> Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

-- 
Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center