On 01/14, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > Op 13-01-2019 om 21:23 schreef Rodrigo Siqueira: > > Hi, > > > > I resend this patch for CI via “intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx” as > > Daniel suggested, and I got a feedback that reported an issue as can be > > seen here: > > > > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/51147/ > > > > After a careful analysis of what happened, I concluded that the problem > > is related to the function “igt_wait_for_vblank_count()” in “igt_kms.c”. > > This function has the following assert: > > > > igt_assert(drmWaitVBlank(drm_fd, &wait_vbl) == 0) > > > > This function only checks if everything went well with the > > drmWaitVBlank() operation and does not make any other validation. IMHO > > the patch is correct, and the problem pointed out by CI is not related > > to this change. > > Hey, Hi, Thanks for the feedback :) > Thanks for finding the root cause. Before upstreaming can you send a fix for i-g-t so we don't lose CI coverage after changing the behavior? I'm just confused on my next step, should I fix the IGT test and then resend the patch? Additionally, I noticed that tests related to vblank wait have others issues as I pointed out here (see my last message): https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/245784/ Is it enough if I handling EINVAL and EOPNOTSUPP in the tests? I'm afraid, that the tests will still fail if I consider these two case; however, I suppose that handling only EOPNOTSUPP can fix the problem, but I'm not sure if it is the best solution. Best Regards > ~Maarten >
