On Saturday, March 15, 2014 08:41:15 AM Ilia Mirkin wrote: > On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 07:41:04PM -0700, Dylan Baker wrote: > >> [snip] > >> > >> > > I'll throw a patch at the end of the series, do you want me to send > >> > >> I'm gonna take it back, sorry. I don't know that dmesg-warn should be > >> worse than warn, (same for fail) since pass -> dmesg-warn, warn -> > >> dmesg-fail, and fail -> dmesg-fail. Personally I was never a fan of > >> having > >> special dmesg- statuses, I feel that a fail is a fail and warn is a warn, > >> but I'm not sure that change is correct. > > > > The current ordering seems wrong to me, e.g. if you have a failing tests > > and fix up some dmesg noise you now have a regression. > > And if you add dmesg noise, you have a fix :) printk(), here I come! > > On a mildly note, am I the only one who thinks it's weird that > transitions to/from (skip, notrun) are considered fixes/regressions? > > -ilia
I agree, that was changed be someone from my original implementation, but obviously it was changed so at least one person feels the current behavior is correct.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
