On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 01:37:46PM +0300, Petri Latvala wrote:
> >>Are the test run in the order defined by fast-feedback.testlist ?
> >>I intended the vgem unload test to be run as the first vgem testcase to
> >>minimise the chance of a stray module leak. Can we define the order within
> >>CI? Can we put comments into fast-feedback.testlist ?
> >My understanding, yes, we are running on that order.
> >Adding comment, no I think no, Petri, Tomi?
> Order: Yes, that order. I'm waiting for an opportune moment to test
> a patch to sleep-and-retry in vgem unload to prune out the cases of
> just having soon-to-finish work left over. Just need to tune the
> amount of retries and sleeping.
> We can also order vgem unload test to be first (along with
> drv_module_reload) depending on whether we want to catch those stray
> module leaks. Comments on that tradeoff?
I planned on having vgem/unload be the first vgem test. It probably
makes sense to have a second one at the end to catch a leak over the
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
Intel-gfx mailing list