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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]
  Powered by Linux