On 03/08/17 16:09, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2017-08-03 15:42:48)
On 03/08/17 15:21, Matthew Auld wrote:
On 28 July 2017 at 18:12, Lionel Landwerlin
+ /* Verify that destroying the config doesn't yield any error. */
+ igt_ioctl(drm_fd, DRM_IOCTL_I915_PERF_REMOVE_CONFIG, &config_id);
+
+ /* Read the config to verify shouldn't raise any issue. */
Read the config? Add back the config while in use?
Thanks, that's indeed adding it back.
Will fix.
+ config_id = i915_perf_add_config(drm_fd, &config);
Check the return value for potential error?
This wrapper function already checks for errors.
Ah, but does the kernel guarantee that a reuse of an active
config-string gives the same config-id? If so
igt_assert_eq(config_id2, config_id1);
-Chris
Sounds like implementation details to me... no?
In the current implementation there is no relationship between the
config-string/uuid and the config-id.
The config-id is likely to be the number of already present configs in
the kernel.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
