On Wed, 09 Sep 2015 09:37:41 +0100, Pekka Paalanen <[email protected]> wrote:
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.
Too subtle for me :)
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?
Since one test is compile-time (availability of fencing) and the other is
runtime (reading the page size) I admit it's easier to settle on skipping
the test in both cases - the alternative would need to be a layer of
runtime abstraction between fenced and non-fenced images.
Perhaps a compromise is to
a) skip the test if the page size is too large (i.e. treat this as an
error condition, until someone is motivated to either abstract the fence
image code so it can be disabled at runtime, or to rework it to support
larger page sizes)
b) printf a warning iff fencing isn't available (a bit like the way the
PIXMAN_DISABLE parser doesn't feel the need to list the implementations
that aren't being skipped)
?
Ben
_______________________________________________
Pixman mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman
