On 08/12/17 09:07, Antonio Argenziano wrote:
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
After looking at this again I disagree with myself :). I (now) think
that if the interface doesn't allow a non privileged user to access some
information it should return an error (EPERM) instead of returning a
returning a fixed value after what looks like a a successful IOCTL, it
might be incorrectly interpreted as the real thing while it should have
been discarded. What do you think?
BTW, why are non-root users not allowed to read reset_stats?
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
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
