[igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t v4 3/3] tests/gem_ctx_param: Add set_priority tests for non SYS_NICE users

[Daniel Vetter]

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 04:47:57PM -0800, Antonio Argenziano wrote:
> On 25/01/18 03:37, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Antonio Argenziano (2018-01-25 01:00:03)
> > > +               }
> > > +
> > >                  gem_context_get_param(fd, &arg);
> > >                  old_value = arg.value;
> > > @@ -312,9 +338,13 @@ igt_main
> > >                  }
> > >                  for (unsigned flags = 0;
> > > -                               flags <= (ROOT | NEW_CTX | VALID_PRIO | OVERFLOW_PRIO);
> > > +                               flags <= (NICE | ROOT | NEW_CTX | VALID_PRIO | OVERFLOW_PRIO);
> > >                                  flags++) {
> > > -                       igt_subtest_f("set-priority%s%s%s%s",
> > > +                       if (!(flags & NICE) && !(flags & ROOT))
> > > +                               continue; /* Needs to be rot to set properties */
> > 
> > Nope, just use igt_require as above.
> 
> I didn't want any "*-not-nice-user*" subtests to appear in the list at all,
> with igt_require they would just skip but still be there right?

subtest lists shouldn't be dynamic, it confuses CI infrastructure badly.
Hence why igt_require/igt_skip result in a special subtest result and will
not supress the subtest outright.

I know that vpg is struggling with heaps of skipped tests in their
reporting, but as soon as you do cross-platform/kernel/OS testing, it's
the only reasonable way to handle things.

So yeah, this needs to be an igt_require, and probably moved into the
subtest stanza (or wrapped with an igt_subtest_group depending upon the
overall test logic).


Aside: The igt intro docs should explain this, patch would be great if
it's unclear/missing.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch