From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 936F5CF31B4 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2024 12:10:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42C3C10E701; Wed, 2 Oct 2024 12:10:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: gabe.freedesktop.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="hATPXc+K"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.17]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3097010E341; Wed, 2 Oct 2024 12:10:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1727871021; x=1759407021; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date: message-id:mime-version; bh=ljppMGga7HHIaQ2C8q5qgGTYYrsqjXivx9zFiKpi1Xc=; b=hATPXc+KFWhRVbs2lq1a+9EMWswbx/Xmz765FCGa2bvcGcSfCZSPffqt EwxBSZ3IRxEanvZ10NV7hvEXiv0iOmtPmNILai3HJriWMhESBRqH0yJMJ fmQDNb3ZuEi5hmxvPlt+nSYQZK1vwlthPRKNLRyOy3oIczDyhKvYz8WvW 8fE8qy2emc1owpdFzUJPApAyFK8yz2QrQ0H7FXd/sljcN0CA00tJTZ6gz 1j9dToY9R2mQZxtDEXIgj9hJJ7OfeHGl1QZ5L8xOwp/yCYfVXZPY5888N JwLTMNzY2tL6bmdY4ytKb3EUjUbtDAH2S9FJu+IsNXieEqanWobwFj9Aa g==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: hxnwAT57RNO5pCk3hEv23A== X-CSE-MsgGUID: I9C3cQhARCKc/BR5kafTQg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11213"; a="26912783" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.11,171,1725346800"; d="scan'208";a="26912783" Received: from fmviesa006.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.146]) by fmvoesa111.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Oct 2024 05:10:21 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 6h9jxrIfR5qBHBWf0Vt0xA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 8VKf2UCkT2aBHxkgKrBLxA== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.11,171,1725346800"; d="scan'208";a="73573394" Received: from lbogdanm-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.245.246.49]) by fmviesa006-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Oct 2024 05:10:17 -0700 From: Jani Nikula To: Maxime Ripard , Simona Vetter Cc: Guenter Roeck , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Carlos Eduardo Gallo Filho , Maarten Lankhorst , Thomas Zimmermann , Jeff Johnson Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] drm: revert some framebuffer API tests In-Reply-To: <20240925-fresh-artichoke-boa-1a673f@houat> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo References: <20240924-refined-nocturnal-starfish-2947b8@houat> <20240924-handsome-labrador-of-shopping-b1dce5@houat> <4accd038-9624-43de-96ad-7ecd0876b607@roeck-us.net> <20240925-fresh-artichoke-boa-1a673f@houat> Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2024 15:10:14 +0300 Message-ID: <877caqu2mx.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Intel graphics driver community testing & development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" On Wed, 25 Sep 2024, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 01:52:02PM GMT, Simona Vetter wrote: >> I think for at least drm the consensus is clear, we won't have kunit tests >> that splat. > > Where was that ever discussed? Well, where was it ever agreed that it's okay for drm kunit tests to emit warnings? :p >> Personally I really don't see the point of unit tests that are >> somewhere between unecessarily hard or outright too much pain to >> deploy in a test rig: Either you don't run them (not great), or you >> filter splats and might filter too much (not great either) or you >> filter as little as possible and fight false positives (also kinda >> suboptimal). > > Or you don't do any of that, and just rely on the canonical way to run > kunit test and trust it's going to pass tests that do indeed pass, and > fail / warn on those that don't. That still doesn't address code being tested emitting *unexpected* warnings. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel