On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 07:42:00AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > Quoting Rodrigo Vivi (2018-07-05 21:52:10) > > On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 03:58:45PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > If the GPU is terminally wedged we cannot submit any requests into a > > > context, completely unfulfilling our purpose of doing so. As this > > > expectedly fails, skip over the test. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_gem_context.c | 3 +++ > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_gem_context.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_gem_context.c > > > index cc848ceeb3c3..0b36265a0f96 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_gem_context.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_gem_context.c > > > @@ -599,6 +599,9 @@ int i915_gem_context_live_selftests(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) > > > bool fake_alias = false; > > > int err; > > > > > > + if (i915_terminally_wedged(&dev_priv->gpu_error)) > > > + return 0; > > > + > > > > I wonder if this could mask a real failure under the skips? > > The *test* can't be run, so what failure relevant to this *test* can be > shown? > > As you notice, when we get to the reset test, we do proclaim failure as > we've already demonstrated reset is bust. Makes sense... I was going to add rv-b here for this and others, but I saw you already got hem and is already pushing ;) Also thanks for the explanation on -ENOTRECOVERABLE one.. that also makes sense. > -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
