On Tue, 10 May 2016, Gabriel Feceoru <gabriel.feceoru@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If count == 100 and expected == 99 this condition fails (99*101/100 = 99.99).
>
> (v2): Increased the tolerance range, as suggested by Jani.
>
> Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Gabriel Feceoru <gabriel.feceoru@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tests/kms_flip.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/kms_flip.c b/tests/kms_flip.c
> index eda2fcc..ceb0e0b 100644
> --- a/tests/kms_flip.c
> +++ b/tests/kms_flip.c
> @@ -1187,7 +1187,7 @@ static void check_final_state(struct test_output *o, struct event_state *es,
>
> count *= o->seq_step;
> expected = elapsed / frame_time(o);
> - igt_assert_f(count >= expected * 99/100 && count <= expected * 101/100,
> + igt_assert_f(count >= expected * 98/100 && count <= expected * 102/100,
I was thinking of
#define DIV_ROUND_UP(n, d) (((n) + (d) - 1) / (d))
igt_assert_f(count >= expected * 99 / 100 &&
count <= DIV_ROUND_UP(expected * 101, 100));
but maybe someone who knows how accurate this should really be could
chime in.
BR,
Jani.
> "dropped frames, expected %d, counted %d, encoder type %d\n",
> expected, count, o->kencoder[0]->encoder_type);
> }
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
