Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] tests/igt_command_line.sh: Add new selftest for special handling

[Petri Latvala <petri.latvala@intel.com>]

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 09:32:05AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Antonio Argenziano (2019-08-19 23:31:37)
> > dmabuf_selftests has been recently added to the test list but not added
> > to the special handling in igt_command_line.sh and therefore build
> > testing would fail.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Antonio Argenziano <antonio.argenziano@intel.com>
> > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > ---
> >  tests/igt_command_line.sh | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tests/igt_command_line.sh b/tests/igt_command_line.sh
> > index 92643c4d..eaec1b4f 100755
> > --- a/tests/igt_command_line.sh
> > +++ b/tests/igt_command_line.sh
> > @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ check_test ()
> >                 # Subtest enumeration of kernel selftest launchers depends
> >                 # on the running kernel. If selftests are not enabled,
> >                 # they will output nothing and exit with 0.
> > -               if [ "$testname" != "i915_selftest" -a "$testname" != "drm_mm" -a "$testname" != "kms_selftest" ]; then
> > +               if [ "$testname" != "i915_selftest" -a "$testname" != "drm_mm" -a "$testname" != "kms_selftest" -a "$testname" != "dmabuf_selftests"]; then
> 
> This does not scale. What does this test even achieve as it appears not
> to be the intended behaviour?


Indeed it doesn't. This whole line is here to accomodate the special
needs of kernel selftest launchers that can't conform to the
documented and expected interface for IGT tests.

A proper solution for making test run planning produce different list
from executed-and-reported tests is dynamic subtests, v2 of which is
on the list. When that can be merged, this ugly if can get nuked.


-- 
Petri Latvala
_______________________________________________
igt-dev mailing list
igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/igt-dev