Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH igt] intel-ci: Do module loads first + last

2016-12-09 Thread Chris Wilson
On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 12:04:58PM +0200, Petri Latvala wrote: > We should move all drv_module_reload@* tests to the bottom > really. That would make the other tests run in a usual configuration, > and as a nice side-effect, with the admin-specified global module > parameters (kernel cmdline,

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH igt] intel-ci: Do module loads first + last

2016-12-09 Thread Petri Latvala
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 09:41:42PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > > I see your point, and maybe I worry too much, but running stuff with a > > reloaded module is never the normal use case. This makes all the test > > run with a reloaded module. Currently, the reload tests are in positions 6-8 due

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH igt] intel-ci: Do module loads first + last

2016-12-07 Thread Chris Wilson
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 09:41:42PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Wed, 07 Dec 2016, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Do the module reload test first, so that it has the best chance of > > succeeding without outside influence (broken driver). And then do it > > last, so that it

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH igt] intel-ci: Do module loads first + last

2016-12-07 Thread Jani Nikula
On Wed, 07 Dec 2016, Chris Wilson wrote: > Do the module reload test first, so that it has the best chance of > succeeding without outside influence (broken driver). And then do it > last, so that it has the best chance of catching some missing > finalisation (e.g.

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH igt] intel-ci: Do module loads first + last

2016-12-07 Thread Chris Wilson
Do the module reload test first, so that it has the best chance of succeeding without outside influence (broken driver). And then do it last, so that it has the best chance of catching some missing finalisation (e.g. memleak) over the lifetime of the testing. Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson