Re: [PATCH i-g-t 2/3] Unify handling of slow/combinatorial tests

David Weinehall
2015-11-18T10:19:40Z

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 01:49:06PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> 2015-11-17 13:34 GMT-02:00 Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>:
[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 run, but at a lower priority.
>
> So it doesn't sound good to put both the kms_frontbuffer_trackign and
> the slow-but-useful behind the same knob. Anyway, I think the "flags"
> idea can solve the problem.

Indeed it should be able to solve that problem. Obviously it
cannot solve the "skipped because the feature isn't available on this
platform", "blacklisted because this feature hasn't been implemented
yet", and what not, but that is, I think, out of scope here.

So, does anyone have any objections (philosophical, colour of bikeshed,
or technical) against the current "flags" implementation?

Kind regards, David