[Intel-gfx] IGT conventions

Jeff McGee jeff.mcgee at intel.com
Thu Jan 16 17:43:36 CET 2014


On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:27:03AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> > Anything you put out to stderr will be tracked as a "warn" in piglit. Atm
> > we don't have any such use-case though I think, mostly since keeping
> > unbuffer stderr and buffered stdout in sync is a pain ;-) But I guess we
> > could formalize this a bit if you see it useful for you with a
> >
> > #define igt_warn(a...) fprintf(stderr, a)
> >
> > or something like that. Some of the checks in kms_flip.c might benefit
> > from this, since on a lot of our platforms the rather stringent timing
> > checks often fail randomly. But besides such corner-cases I kinda prefer
> > if we just split up testcases more instead of trying to be really clever
> > with the level of fail encounter and reported.
> 
> Actually if we put an fflush(stdout); before the fprintf then we would
> not have any issues with buffered vs. unbuffered. And for consistency
> maybe we could define igt_warn as just fputs and igt_warn_f as the
> full printf thing.
> 
> If you think this is useful for your tests then I'll happily merge a
> patch to add igt_warn*

Thanks for all the feedback. I'll see if something like this is really
necessary for my cases. Agree that the simplicity of pass, skip, or fail may
be best.

Jeff



More information about the Intel-gfx mailing list