[Pixman] [PATCH 3/3] test: Add cover-test v4

Pekka Paalanen ppaalanen at gmail.com
Thu Sep 10 03:43:14 PDT 2015

On Wed, 09 Sep 2015 18:31:42 +0100
"Ben Avison" <bavison at riscosopen.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Sep 2015 09:37:41 +0100, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> Too subtle for me :)
> > 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?
> Since one test is compile-time (availability of fencing) and the other is
> runtime (reading the page size) I admit it's easier to settle on skipping
> the test in both cases  - the alternative would need to be a layer of
> runtime abstraction between fenced and non-fenced images.

Yup, skip in both cases would at least be obvious.

> Perhaps a compromise is to
> a) skip the test if the page size is too large (i.e. treat this as an
> error condition, until someone is motivated to either abstract the fence
> image code so it can be disabled at runtime, or to rework it to support
> larger page sizes)

So a skip or an error? Error wouldn't be nice for Oded, since he
wouldn't be able to have 'make check' pass on his PPC boxes. Would be
rude to dump this on him.

> b) printf a warning iff fencing isn't available (a bit like the way the
> PIXMAN_DISABLE parser doesn't feel the need to list the implementations
> that aren't being skipped)

I don't think we can see the warning in buildbot logs.

Anyway, the case we are considering here is when fencing is not
available. I cannot tell what platform that would be, I assume it to be
very rare. IMHO skipping the whole cover-test on such platforms is not
that bad. And it's more an OS feature than CPU instruction set - all
asm paths we have someone can test on fence-supporting platforms, right?

I'll go with the skip, and send v5 just in case.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/pixman/attachments/20150910/051bb389/attachment.sig>

More information about the Pixman mailing list