From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Wilson Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Handle sync_seqno correctly when seqno has wrapped. Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:54:50 +0000 Message-ID: <84c8a8$6gsevb@orsmga001.jf.intel.com> References: <1352814696-2154-1-git-send-email-mika.kuoppala@intel.com> <20121113083926.340d40d5@bwidawsk.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A59C29E946 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:54:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org To: Daniel Vetter , Ben Widawsky Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:45:14 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > trying to engineer a perfect test for the > single failure mode we now have in front of us might actually reduce > coverage. This is a critical point worth remembering when writing tests: Having a test case that detects a past bug is great, but a test case that detects a future bug is better. -Chris. -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre