On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 04:34:13PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 04:29:01PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 04:58:19PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > This testcase tries to validate -EIO behaviour by disabling gpu reset > > > support in the kernel. Except that the wait subtest forgot to do that, > > > and therefore gets a return value of 0 instead of the expected -EIO. > > > > > > > Wrong. It was intentionally not using reset=false. > > To be more precise, the reason here is that we are not wedging the GPU > but the expectation is that a wait upon a request that hangs reports the > hang. Since the wait on GPU activity is explicit in the ioctl, the > presumption is that the user actually cares about that activity and so > should be given greater information about how it completes (timeout, GPU > hung, or success). The only place we reprt hangs is in the reset_stats_ioctl. And fundamentally wait_ioctl can't do (right now) what you want, since if the reset recovery happens before userspace calls wait_ioctl then it will happily return 0 for success. So if you want this then we need: - a reason for userspace to want this - reorg all our reset handling and move (or well copy) the reset stats to every object I don't see the point in that. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
