On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 01:49:06PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> 2015-11-17 13:34 GMT-02:00 Daniel Vetter :
[snip]
> > I thought the hidden tests in kms_frontbuffer_tracking would be useful,
> > just really slow, but seems I'm mistaken. In general we have a bunch of
> > stress tests which we want to
2015-11-17 13:34 GMT-02:00 Daniel Vetter :
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 03:59:24PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
>> 2015-10-26 15:30 GMT-02:00 David Weinehall :
>> > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 02:44:18PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
>> >> 2015-10-26 12:59 GMT-02:00 David Weinehall
>> >> :
>> >> > On Fri, Oct
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 03:59:24PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> 2015-10-26 15:30 GMT-02:00 David Weinehall :
> > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 02:44:18PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> >> 2015-10-26 12:59 GMT-02:00 David Weinehall
> >> :
> >> > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:50:46AM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 08:47:28AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 03:59:24PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> > 2015-10-26 15:30 GMT-02:00 David Weinehall
> > :
> > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 02:44:18PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> > >> 2015-10-26 12:59 GMT-02:00 David Weinehal
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 09:55:03AM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> 2015-10-30 5:56 GMT-02:00 David Weinehall :
> > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 02:12:15PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> >> 2015-10-28 9:29 GMT-02:00 David Weinehall
> >> :
> >> > Some tests should not be run by default, due to their slow,
> >
2015-10-30 5:56 GMT-02:00 David Weinehall :
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 02:12:15PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
>> 2015-10-28 9:29 GMT-02:00 David Weinehall :
>> > Some tests should not be run by default, due to their slow,
>> > and sometimes superfluous, nature.
>> >
>> > We still want to be able to r
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 02:12:15PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> 2015-10-28 9:29 GMT-02:00 David Weinehall :
> > Some tests should not be run by default, due to their slow,
> > and sometimes superfluous, nature.
> >
> > We still want to be able to run these tests in some cases.
> > Until now there's
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 05:14:28PM +, Thomas Wood wrote:
> If this is intended to be documented and used in tests, then it should
> be included in the public API (i.e. without the underscore prefix).
True. Will fix.
> > + *
> > + * This is used to skip subtests that should only be included
>
On 28 October 2015 at 11:29, David Weinehall
wrote:
> Some tests should not be run by default, due to their slow,
> and sometimes superfluous, nature.
>
> We still want to be able to run these tests in some cases.
> Until now there's been no unified way of handling this. Remedy
> this by introduci
2015-10-28 9:29 GMT-02:00 David Weinehall :
> Some tests should not be run by default, due to their slow,
> and sometimes superfluous, nature.
>
> We still want to be able to run these tests in some cases.
> Until now there's been no unified way of handling this. Remedy
> this by introducing the --
Some tests should not be run by default, due to their slow,
and sometimes superfluous, nature.
We still want to be able to run these tests in some cases.
Until now there's been no unified way of handling this. Remedy
this by introducing the --all option to igt_core,
and use it in gem_concurrent_bl
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 03:59:24PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> 2015-10-26 15:30 GMT-02:00 David Weinehall :
> > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 02:44:18PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> >> 2015-10-26 12:59 GMT-02:00 David Weinehall
> >> :
> >> > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:50:46AM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
2015-10-23 12:55 GMT-02:00 Thomas Wood :
> On 23 October 2015 at 12:42, David Weinehall
> wrote:
>> Some tests should not be run by default, due to their slow,
>> and sometimes superfluous, nature.
>>
>> We still want to be able to run these tests though in some cases.
>> Until now there's been no
2015-10-26 15:30 GMT-02:00 David Weinehall :
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 02:44:18PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
>> 2015-10-26 12:59 GMT-02:00 David Weinehall :
>> > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:50:46AM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> >> It's not clear to me, please clarify: now the t
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 04:28:15PM +, Thomas Wood wrote:
> On 26 October 2015 at 15:28, David Weinehall
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 03:55:23PM +0100, Thomas Wood wrote:
> >> On 23 October 2015 at 12:42, David Weinehall
> >> wrote:
> >> > Some tests should not be run by default, due t
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 02:44:18PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> 2015-10-26 12:59 GMT-02:00 David Weinehall :
> > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:50:46AM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> It's not clear to me, please clarify: now the tests that were
> >> previously completely hidden will
2015-10-26 12:59 GMT-02:00 David Weinehall :
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:50:46AM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> It's not clear to me, please clarify: now the tests that were
>> previously completely hidden will be listed in --list-subtests and
>> will be shown as skipped during normal
On 26 October 2015 at 15:28, David Weinehall
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 03:55:23PM +0100, Thomas Wood wrote:
>> On 23 October 2015 at 12:42, David Weinehall
>> wrote:
>> > Some tests should not be run by default, due to their slow,
>> > and sometimes superfluous, nature.
>> >
>> > We still
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 03:55:23PM +0100, Thomas Wood wrote:
> On 23 October 2015 at 12:42, David Weinehall
> wrote:
> > Some tests should not be run by default, due to their slow,
> > and sometimes superfluous, nature.
> >
> > We still want to be able to run these tests though in some cases.
> >
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:50:46AM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
[snip]
> It's not clear to me, please clarify: now the tests that were
> previously completely hidden will be listed in --list-subtests and
> will be shown as skipped during normal runs?
Yes. Daniel and I discussed this and he though
On 23 October 2015 at 12:42, David Weinehall
wrote:
> Some tests should not be run by default, due to their slow,
> and sometimes superfluous, nature.
>
> We still want to be able to run these tests though in some cases.
> Until now there's been no unified way of handling this. Remedy
> this by in
2015-10-23 9:42 GMT-02:00 David Weinehall :
> Some tests should not be run by default, due to their slow,
> and sometimes superfluous, nature.
>
> We still want to be able to run these tests though in some cases.
> Until now there's been no unified way of handling this. Remedy
> this by introducing
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 02:42:35PM +0300, David Weinehall wrote:
> Some tests should not be run by default, due to their slow,
> and sometimes superfluous, nature.
>
> We still want to be able to run these tests though in some cases.
> Until now there's been no unified way of handling this. Remedy
Some tests should not be run by default, due to their slow,
and sometimes superfluous, nature.
We still want to be able to run these tests though in some cases.
Until now there's been no unified way of handling this. Remedy
this by introducing the --with-slow-combinatorial option to
igt_core, and
24 matches
Mail list logo
