Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-01-28 11:03:30)
>
> On 27/01/2019 13:06, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Check that we are allowed to reset the GPU prior to execution.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > tests/i915/gem_workarounds.c | 6 +++++-
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_workarounds.c b/tests/i915/gem_workarounds.c
> > index 78478ad2c..0e9ab2386 100644
> > --- a/tests/i915/gem_workarounds.c
> > +++ b/tests/i915/gem_workarounds.c
> > @@ -192,7 +192,11 @@ static void check_workarounds(int fd, enum operation op, unsigned int flags)
> >
> > switch (op) {
> > case GPU_RESET:
> > - igt_force_gpu_reset(fd);
> > + {
> > + igt_hang_t hang = igt_allow_hang(fd, ctx, 0);
> > + igt_force_gpu_reset(fd);
> > + igt_disallow_hang(fd, hang);
> > + }
> > break;
> >
> > case SUSPEND_RESUME:
> >
>
> If it doesn't make sense to add the checks into igt_force_gpu_reset (so
> force means force), should we have igt_try_gpu_reset to avoid having to
> wrap it everywhere?
Ugh. igt_try_gpu_reset_with_many_many_options_depending_on_test().
I like my requires as high up in the chain as possible, I've been bitten
too many times by hiding them.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
