[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 2/2] Test case for drm_vblank_cleanup refcount validation patch

[PrasannaKumar Muralidharan]

Hi Daniel,

On 30 October 2017 at 15:40, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 08:44:45PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> On 24 October 2017 at 22:18, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
>> <prasannatsmkumar at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > In i915 driver unload drm_vblank_get is added to test whether
>> > drm_vblank_cleanup refcount validation patch is working.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan <prasannatsmkumar at gmail.com>
>> > ---
>> > Changes in v2:
>> > Use drm_crtc_vblank_get instead of _put. In previous patch _put was wrongly
>> > used.
>> >
>> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 7 +++++++
>> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
>> > index 9f45cfe..4aee1c0 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
>> > @@ -1373,6 +1373,13 @@ void i915_driver_unload(struct drm_device *dev)
>> >         struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
>> >         struct pci_dev *pdev = dev_priv->drm.pdev;
>> >
>> > +       enum pipe pipe;
>> > +       for_each_pipe(dev_priv, pipe) {
>> > +               struct intel_crtc *crtc = intel_get_crtc_for_pipe(dev_priv,
>> > +                                                                 pipe);
>> > +               drm_crtc_vblank_get(&crtc->base);
>> > +       }
>> > +
>> >         i915_driver_unregister(dev_priv);
>> >
>> >         if (i915_gem_suspend(dev_priv))
>> > --
>> > 2.10.0
>> >
>>
>> From https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_6167/fi-ilk-650/igt@drv_module_reload@basic-reload.html
>> it can be seen that this patch triggers warning when vblank->refcount
>> > 0 in vblank cleanup. This tests patch 1 successfully.
>>
>> I think patch 1 is good to go.
>
> Yeah it works, but we don't know whether it breaks anything yet. Can you
> pls resubmit just the first patch? Abusing CI was just an idea to get it
> fully tested, before we can merge it still needs to pass full CI. We just
> had an issue 2 weeks ago where CI blew up because an untested patch landed
> that broke every test :-/
> -Daniel
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> http://blog.ffwll.ch

I have already sent that patch alone. Please look at
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/184866/.

Regards,
PrasannaKumar