On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net> wrote: > > Also as an overall comment, I want the patches to guarantee to catch > the bug you found, which I think with the randomness of > gem_stress - isn't. Specifically, we want the waiting ring to be > waiting on a pre-wrapped value. Maybe I missed that guarantee, but if > there is a quick/dirty way to make that happen, that would better than > running an arbitrary number of gem_stress tests. I think running just gem_stress is ok - as long as the test has a reasonable good chance of blowing up. On future platforms something else than semaphores might blow up, or we might simply botch a seqno comparison. So imo having a test that just beats a bit on the systems+the wrap-around after each boot/resume should give us excellent coverage, and trying to engineer a perfect test for the single failure mode we now have in front of us might actually reduce coverage. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
