[Pixman] [PATCH 3/3] test: Add cover-test v4
ppaalanen at gmail.com
Wed Sep 9 01:37:41 PDT 2015
On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 14:29:38 +0100
"Ben Avison" <bavison at riscosopen.org> wrote:
> I've reviewed this series and it all looks good to me - with the proviso
> that it feels like it's bit odd that there's a difference between:
> On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 08:27:36 +0100, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Check the fence page size and skip the test if it is too large.
> > Cover-test is still executed even if fenced memory is not available,
> > to execute the numerical correctness testing.
> The CRC aspect of the test is just as useful if the fence page size is
> too large as it is in the case where you can't fence at all. Shouldn't we
> either skip the test in both cases or use non-fenced images in both cases?
I think we need some indication whether cover-test runs with or without
fencing. So far I have thought that if fence-image-self-test is
skipped, then cover-test can only run without fencing. If
fence-image-self-test is not skipped, then cover-test uses fencing if
it is not skipped.
It's perhaps a bit too subtle.
Maybe cover-test should have a single printf telling if it is fenced or
not? That would show up on old autotools, but on new ones you have to
go look in the logs anyway.
Maybe it would be most obvious if cover-test either always used fencing
or skipped. We'd lose the CRC check on too-large-page systems, but at
least if we see it as a PASS, we can be sure it used fencing. How's that?
E.g buildbot logs available via
contain stdout and stderr, but I don't think we can get the test logs.
I pushed the first two patches but not this one yet:
0700685..e9ef2cc master -> master
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Pixman