On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 05:15:37PM +0300, Gabriel Feceoru wrote: > > > On 10.05.2016 16:52, Jani Nikula wrote: > >On Tue, 10 May 2016, Gabriel Feceoru <gabriel.feceoru@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>Comparing 2 numbers with 1% accuracy depends on which one is the > >>reference. If count == 100 and expected == 99 this condition fails, > >>although it should pass. > > > >Well, the expectation should be the reference. If you expect 50 at 50% > >tolerance, 25..75 is okay. 100 is clearly out of tolerance, but your > >method would accept it too. > > > >Would it help to round the lower limit down and upper limit up? I think > >that would be more acceptable. > > Yes, you are right. I'll adjust it to 98/100 and 102/100. Maybe also extract the computation for lower/upper limit into local variables, to make the code less dense and easier to understand. -Daniel > > Thanks, > Gabriel. > > > > >BR, > >Jani. > > > >>Signed-off-by: Gabriel Feceoru <gabriel.feceoru@xxxxxxxxx> > >>--- > >> tests/kms_flip.c | 3 ++- > >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >>diff --git a/tests/kms_flip.c b/tests/kms_flip.c > >>index eda2fcc..938b32d 100644 > >>--- a/tests/kms_flip.c > >>+++ b/tests/kms_flip.c > >>@@ -1187,7 +1187,8 @@ 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 * 99/100 && count <= expected * 101/100) || > >>+ (expected >= count * 99/100 && expected <= count * 101/100), > >> "dropped frames, expected %d, counted %d, encoder type %d\n", > >> expected, count, o->kencoder[0]->encoder_type); > >> } > > -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
