[igt-dev] [PATCH RFC 2/2] lib/igt_core: print card sysfs node at subtest results

[Petri Latvala]

On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 10:21:36AM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 18:26:50 +0200
> Kamil Konieczny <kamil.konieczny at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Mauro,
> > 
> > On 2022-09-28 at 12:43:20 +0300, Petri Latvala wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 10:58:42AM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:  
> > > > From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab at kernel.org>
> > > > 
> > > > This helps to identify what GPU failed on multi-GPU tests.  
> > > 
> > > And completely breaks igt_runner when it tries to parse the result
> > > logs.
> 
> Yes. That's btw one of the reasons why I submitted it as a RFC: depending
> on how CI check IGT logs, it can break the test results there as well.
> 
> Anyway, this is fixable.
> 
> The point is, once we have multi-GPU tests, we need to have a way to
> report what GPU failed.

Imho it's best printed in __igt_fail_assert to get it close to the
reason why the test is failing.


-- 
Petri Latvala


> 
> Once integrated with some upcoming multi-gpu support patch series,
> we can enable this log only if multi-gpu tests are enabled.
> 
> On other words, I expect that this series, and in particular patch 2/2,
> will be changed and sent together on its final version with the 
> multi-GPU patch series that Kamil has been working with.
> 
> > First thing is to decide where such info should be printed,
> > imho it is worth to have it with maybe some new IGT_PRINT_GPU
> > environment var ?
> > This var can configure how it will work, what it will store,
> > where to print message about used GPU, on begin of error message
> > or at end.
> >
> > If not defined, we should not print any additional info.
> 
> No need to have a separate IGT_PRINT_GPU, as the additional GPU log data
> is only needed when more than one GPUs is used. So, it can be enabled based
> on IGT_DEVICE selection and/or --device parameter, at the tests that use 
> multiple GPUs.
> 
> > btw I did not received you RFC from mailist server,
> > are there any known problems with ML ?
> 
> Weird. The series reached patchwork: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/109171/
> Yet, as you were c/c, maybe the mail list server decided to exclude
> you from its own c/c (this is configurable on some mailing list servers).
> 
> > Second thought, after reading RFC on patchwork, please put your
> > comments from cover letter into commit description in first
> > patch so it will be in git history.
> 
> Ok. Btw, if you prefer to place this patch together with the next
> version of your multi-gpu RFC, feel free to do so and edit the
> patch descriptions to better fit the needs.
> 
> Regards,
> Mauro