[igt-dev] [RFC PATCH i-g-t v2 5/8] tests/core_hotunplug: Add 'GEM address space' variant

[Michał Winiarski]

Quoting Janusz Krzysztofik (2020-06-22 18:44:12)
> Verify if an additional address space associated with an open device
> file descriptor is cleaned up correctly on device hotunplug.
> 
> v2: rebase on upstream, update includes order
> 
> Signed-off-by: Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik at linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  tests/core_hotunplug.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 31 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/core_hotunplug.c b/tests/core_hotunplug.c
> index 0892e1927..18a963564 100644
> --- a/tests/core_hotunplug.c
> +++ b/tests/core_hotunplug.c
> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
>  #include <unistd.h>
>  
>  #include "i915/gem.h"
> +#include "i915/gem_vm.h"
>  #include "igt.h"
>  #include "igt_device_scan.h"
>  #include "igt_kmod.h"
> @@ -332,6 +333,29 @@ static void hotreplug_lateclose(void)
>         healthcheck();
>  }
>  
> +static void vm_hotunplug_lateclose(void)
> +{
> +       struct hotunplug priv;
> +
> +       prepare_for_rescan(&priv);
> +
> +       gem_require_vm(priv.fd.drm);
> +
> +       local_debug("creating additional GEM user address space");
> +       igt_ignore_warn(gem_vm_create(priv.fd.drm));

Why the "ignore_warn"?
This deserves a comment. And perhaps a word of information about why we picked
this partucular operation in the commit message (vm_create).
This is a regression test, right?

LGTM otherwise (but again - see previous patches):

Reviewed-by: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski at intel.com>

-Michał