On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:45:14 +0100 Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote: > 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 I didn't say don't run gem_stress... -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center
