On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 09:18:34AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 16:19:07 +0100 > Damien Lespiau <damien.lesp...@intel.com> wrote: > > > This will allow us to explicitely blacklist tests we don't want to run > > on simulation.
I agree with Jesse on this. Mostly what I've wanted is an "opt-in" approach as opposed to an "opt-out" one. Such a thing is better controlled via a Makefile target, or separate script. Generally I loathe the idea of a separate script, but in a case like simulation where I'm thinking we may want to impose higher level timeouts via kill... maybe it's not so bad. > > So FWIW I'll reiterate that I'd prefer to manage this in either the > Makefile target for the tests (e.g. have a single_kernel_sim_tests or > somesuch), or separate scripts altogether for running the different > types of tests, with specific subsets for running on simulation. > > Having to sprinkle skip_on_simulation into the actual tests seems like > duplicated effort across every test. More importantly, it's too easy to forget to add, or not know when it's relevant to add. "Doesn't scale" as Daniel likes to say. > > For the cases where the args or iterations differ, it might be better > to simply take an argv for the values, and have the sim vs. full > scripts pass different values. Time to develop our own programming language with for_each semantics :D I'm okay with what we ended up on the iterators. It's somewhat ugly, but I couldn't come up with anything less ugly, and the argv thing I think just won't work well for some of the weirder tests. > > -- > Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
