On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 14:29:38 +0100 "Ben Avison" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've reviewed this series and it all looks good to me - with the proviso > that it feels like it's bit odd that there's a difference between: > > On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 08:27:36 +0100, Pekka Paalanen <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Check the fence page size and skip the test if it is too large. > > and: > > > Cover-test is still executed even if fenced memory is not available, > > to execute the numerical correctness testing. > > The CRC aspect of the test is just as useful if the fence page size is > too large as it is in the case where you can't fence at all. Shouldn't we > either skip the test in both cases or use non-fenced images in both cases? Hi Ben, I think we need some indication whether cover-test runs with or without fencing. So far I have thought that if fence-image-self-test is skipped, then cover-test can only run without fencing. If fence-image-self-test is not skipped, then cover-test uses fencing if it is not skipped. It's perhaps a bit too subtle. Maybe cover-test should have a single printf telling if it is fenced or not? That would show up on old autotools, but on new ones you have to go look in the logs anyway. Maybe it would be most obvious if cover-test either always used fencing or skipped. We'd lose the CRC check on too-large-page systems, but at least if we see it as a PASS, we can be sure it used fencing. How's that? E.g buildbot logs available via https://launchpad.net/~cairo.admin/+archive/ubuntu/cairo-daily/+packages contain stdout and stderr, but I don't think we can get the test logs. I pushed the first two patches but not this one yet: 0700685..e9ef2cc master -> master Thanks, pq
pgpUbct2nMMBU.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pixman mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman
