On 9/4/2017 1:30 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 02:33:23PM -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:Added the missing IGT_TEST_DESCRIPTION and some subtest descriptions. Trying to establish a method to document subtests, it should describe the feature being tested rather than how. The HOW part can, if needed, be described in the test code. Documenting subtests will give us a good way to trace feature test coverage, and also help a faster ramp for understanding the test code. v2: Removed duplication, addressed comments, cc'd test author Cc: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: Eric Anholt <eric@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaumkar@xxxxxxxxx> --- tests/gem_flink_basic.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/tests/gem_flink_basic.c b/tests/gem_flink_basic.c index 26ae7d6..9c8c4c3 100644 --- a/tests/gem_flink_basic.c +++ b/tests/gem_flink_basic.c @@ -36,6 +36,8 @@ #include <sys/ioctl.h> #include "drm.h" +IGT_TEST_DESCRIPTION("Tests for flink - a way to export a gem object by name"); + static void test_flink(int fd) { @@ -44,8 +46,6 @@ test_flink(int fd) struct drm_gem_open open_struct; int ret; - igt_info("Testing flink and open.\n");Do we really want to remove runtime-dumped information (maybe we could tune it down to debug level) with comments that in my experience, no one ever reads?
I removed that to avoid duplication as per the previous review comments. I do think it's useful to have both.
I just looked again at the igt library docs, and like last year when I've done that, we've accumulated sizeable chunks of missing docs and warnings. So who's going to maintain this? We can barely keep docs in shape for the core libs, how exactly are we going to keep docs in shape for the hundreds of testcases we have? Do you have a team of 10+ people working on this?
I think this will be more effective if this becomes a collective responsibility, not just an individual team's effort. We should enforce regular updates to the documentation during code reviews. We do not need to start updating all 300+ tests for now. We can add this form of documentation whenever we encounter a test that is hard to follow or needs clarification. Same goes for the libraries.
Same about IGT_TEST_DESCRIPTION, not enough people seem to care even for that simple one-liner to make it work. My proposal would be that we first try to get the docs we have into decent shape, which means establishing as something everyone takes care of. Adding more lofty documentation goals that won't pan out imo just doesn't make much sense.
Agree, but if we really want to make this efficient, we can look up the API documentation while describing a certain test and update both as necessary.
And yes this is from the person who did push for docs almost everywhere. It's hard work, and it's a lot of hard work. -Daniel
I agree. There still seem to be mixed views on even whether we need documentation or not.
- memset(&create, 0, sizeof(create)); create.size = 16 * 1024; ret = ioctl(fd, DRM_IOCTL_I915_GEM_CREATE, &create); @@ -69,8 +69,6 @@ test_double_flink(int fd) struct drm_gem_flink flink2; int ret; - igt_info("Testing repeated flink.\n"); - memset(&create, 0, sizeof(create)); create.size = 16 * 1024; ret = ioctl(fd, DRM_IOCTL_I915_GEM_CREATE, &create); @@ -92,8 +90,6 @@ test_bad_flink(int fd) struct drm_gem_flink flink; int ret; - igt_info("Testing error return on bad flink ioctl.\n"); - flink.handle = 0x10101010; ret = ioctl(fd, DRM_IOCTL_GEM_FLINK, &flink); igt_assert(ret == -1 && errno == ENOENT); @@ -105,8 +101,6 @@ test_bad_open(int fd) struct drm_gem_open open_struct; int ret; - igt_info("Testing error return on bad open ioctl.\n"); - open_struct.name = 0x10101010; ret = ioctl(fd, DRM_IOCTL_GEM_OPEN, &open_struct); @@ -121,8 +115,6 @@ test_flink_lifetime(int fd) struct drm_gem_open open_struct; int ret, fd2; - igt_info("Testing flink lifetime.\n"); - fd2 = drm_open_driver(DRIVER_INTEL); memset(&create, 0, sizeof(create)); @@ -134,11 +126,13 @@ test_flink_lifetime(int fd) ret = ioctl(fd2, DRM_IOCTL_GEM_FLINK, &flink); igt_assert_eq(ret, 0); + /* Open another reference to the gem object */ open_struct.name = flink.name; ret = ioctl(fd, DRM_IOCTL_GEM_OPEN, &open_struct); igt_assert_eq(ret, 0); igt_assert(open_struct.handle != 0); + /* Before closing the previous one */ close(fd2); fd2 = drm_open_driver(DRIVER_INTEL); @@ -155,14 +149,36 @@ igt_main igt_fixture fd = drm_open_driver(DRIVER_INTEL); + /** + * basic: + * Test creation and use of flink. + */ igt_subtest("basic") test_flink(fd); + + /** + * double-flink: + * This test validates the ability to create multiple flinks + * for the same gem object. They should obtain the same name. + */ igt_subtest("double-flink") test_double_flink(fd); + + /** + * bad-flink: + * Negative test for invalid flink usage. + */ igt_subtest("bad-flink") test_bad_flink(fd); + igt_subtest("bad-open") test_bad_open(fd); + + /** + * flink-lifetime: + * Flink lifetime is limited to that of the gem object it + * points to. + */ igt_subtest("flink-lifetime") test_flink_lifetime(fd); } -- 1.9.1 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
