[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t] intel-ci: Add fast-feedback-simulation.testlist

[Daniel Vetter]

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 05:30:08PM -0700, Kelvin Gardiner wrote:
> 
> 
> On 16/08/17 07:04, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Petri Latvala <petri.latvala at intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 02:04:51PM -0700, Kelvin Gardiner wrote:
> > > > Added an initial list of fast feedback tests for simulation
> > > > environments.
> > > 
> > > Merged, thanks.
> > 
> > Yes I'm a bit late, just noticed this fly by: How does this interact
> > wit igt_skip_on_simulation? What's the significance of this list, are
> > we going to see CI run these? Have platform owners acked this as the
> > PO list?
> 
> This is a list of tests seen to be good in a simulation environment. It is
> meant as a starting point to have a reference list, to which we can add.

seen by whom? That was pretty much my question/concern here. I chatted
with Petri, and apparently this list is also used by the helsinki CI, and
that should have been noted.

But just today I've seen a mail fly by that e.g. Rodrigo has a power-on
testlist. Which I guess is again something else, but doesn't help making
things less confusing.

I mean you can add whatever you want to igt and let it rot there, but if
you expect platform owners, test engineers and developers to support it,
we need a consensus. Otherwise it won't really happen, and this patch here
looked like that consensus engineering work wasn't done (and that's really
the hard work, not the patch itself).

> With regards to igt_skip_on_simulation, some times this is erroneously
> included in a test, other times it is missing, some tests need to reduce
> iterations etc, (where this still give a valid test) when this is set (as
> some already do). In short some work is needed to clean up the use of this
> flag.

So ... who's doing that work? Or are we just going to let 2 half-solutions
rot side-by-side?
-Daniel

> 
> > 
> > VPG validation is just one team here, imo adding something like this
> > needs a lot more buy-in. Or we're just once again adding a list no one
> > is actually using, which is pointless. Imo if we can't get acks from
> > platform owners that they are actively using this list, and CI that
> > they are also actively using this list, then it should be removed
> > again.
> > 
> > Thanks, Daniel
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --
> > > Petri Latvala
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > > Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
> > 
> > 
> > 

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch