Re: [PATCH i-g-t] tests/gem_reset_stats: Fix retrieval of hangcheck stats expectation

[Antonio Argenziano <antonio.argenziano@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 08/12/17 08:46, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Antonio Argenziano (2017-12-08 16:27:17)
> > The test expected IOCTL 'I915_GET_RESET_STATS' would return an error
> > when not root. That is no longer true in the driver and therefore
> > the test was incorrectly failing.
> >
> > Cc: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Arkadiusz Hiler <arkadiusz.hiler@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Antonio Argenziano <antonio.argenziano@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   tests/gem_reset_stats.c | 22 +++++++++++++++-------
> >   1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/gem_reset_stats.c b/tests/gem_reset_stats.c
> > index edc40767..83c91f0f 100644
> > --- a/tests/gem_reset_stats.c
> > +++ b/tests/gem_reset_stats.c
> > @@ -605,10 +605,7 @@ static void test_reset_count(const struct intel_execution_engine *e,
> >   
> >                  c2 = get_reset_count(fd, ctx);
> >   
> > -               if (ctx == 0)
> > -                       igt_assert(c2 == -EPERM);
> > -               else
> > -                       igt_assert(c2 == 0);
> > +               igt_assert(c2 == 0);
> >          }
> >   
> >          igt_waitchildren();
> > @@ -619,6 +616,11 @@ static void test_reset_count(const struct intel_execution_engine *e,
> >          close(fd);
> >   }
> >   
> > +static int __get_reset_stats(int fd, struct local_drm_i915_reset_stats *rs)
> > +{
> > +       return drmIoctl(fd, GET_RESET_STATS_IOCTL, &rs);
> > +}
> > +
> >   static int _test_params(int fd, int ctx, uint32_t flags, uint32_t pad)
> >   {
> >          struct local_drm_i915_reset_stats rs;
> > @@ -644,10 +646,16 @@ static void _check_param_ctx(const int fd, const int ctx, const cap_t cap)
> >          const uint32_t bad = rand() + 1;
> >   
> >          if (ctx == 0) {
> > -               if (cap == root)
> >                          igt_assert_eq(_test_params(fd, ctx, 0, 0), 0);
>
> Spurious indenting leftover.
>
> > -               else
> > -                       igt_assert_eq(_test_params(fd, ctx, 0, 0), -EPERM);
> > +               if (cap != root) {
>
> So what are you expecting to happen if you do happen to be rot? Is this
> test redundant, which is why you skipped it?

Yes, I think it is redundant because the only expectation for root is 
for the IOCTL to be successful as it is for non root users (that is why 
I left the first assert to be run unconditionally), and, even if root is 
supposed to get the correct reset_count value, unless I am missing 
something, that test is not in the scope of this subtest.

-Antonio

> -Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx