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

[Kelvin Gardiner]

On 17/08/17 00:50, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> 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

We have this on our to do list. I was thinking if we create a list of 
tests that need attention the 2 val teams can work through the list to 
make the fixes.

>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>