On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 02:41, Gaetan Nadon <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12-01-04 09:38 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 15:33, Gaetan Nadon <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 12-01-04 04:52 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >>>> While I have the attention of someone versed in buildsystem-fu: >>>> intel-gpu-tools also contains a set of tests for the i915 kernel module >>>> (and the libdrm interface for it). Currently we run them with >>>> >>>> $ make test >>>> >>>> by abusing the automake test rig. Is this ok or is there a better way to >>>> do something like this? >>> I would think so, there is support in Automake to hook test cases and in >>> util-macros to test for things like glib and provide configure option. >>> It is used by several modules by invoking 'make check'. I'll look into >>> that, but I might ask a few questions as I am not familiar with video >>> drivers. >> Originally we've abused make check, but that turned out to be a bad >> idea because make distcheck automatically runs that. And the tests >> check the kernel and not intel-gpu-tools itself, so that didn't make >> much sense. Hence we added make test with a quick hack to run make >> check with a different set of tests (see the test: target in >> tests/Makefile.am). > This makes the intel-gpu-tools package confusing. It is supposed to be > "tools", > not a hardware test suite. I don't really see a way around this. >> One thing I'm wondering is whether we could easily ship these tests in >> some form, so that users could run them from the distro package >> instead of grabbing the sources. > Make it clear what it is: a new "intel-gpu-tests" package which depends > on intel-gpu-tools. Some executable installed in BINDIR runs test cases > installed in DATADIR. You need to provide ways to select test cases, > instructions on how to report bugs with meaningful data, etc... > > The executable must be smart enough to not run anything on non-Intel > hardware or wrong kernel, etc... This would put your test suite in the > public domain and would be run by anyone. Would it be useful or just > generate more work? Would distros be willing to install this? They are > the ones who would initially get the bug reports from their users. > > X.Org has an X Test Suite in a git repo to test the protocols. > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/test/xts/tree/README > > I did try one of the tools on my computer. The windows started shaking > and the window manager eventually fell off the monitor, never to be seen > again. Needless to say, I am not willing to try any test case :-(
I think you've convinced me ;-) At least for the foreseeable future, the current setup seems to be good enough. Thanks a lot for your explanations & patches. Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter [email protected] - +41 (0) 79 364 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
