[PATCH i-g-t v2 2/3] lib/igt_device_scan: change device list variable visibility

[Lucas De Marchi]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 04:37:49PM +0100, Zbigniew Kempczyński wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 09:31:46AM -0600, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 05:49:15AM +0100, Zbigniew Kempczyński wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 05:26:25PM +0100, Kamil Konieczny wrote:
>> > > Hi Zbigniew,
>> > > On 2025-01-23 at 10:52:07 +0100, Zbigniew Kempczyński wrote:
>> > >
>> > > could you improve subject? something like:
>> > >
>> > > lib/igt_device_scan: Fix multithreading for Xe
>> >
>> > Yes, I can change it to sth like
>> >
>> > 'lib/igt_device_scan: fix multithreading support in device scanning'
>> >
>> > because it also affects i915 even if there's not used there.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > > In commit: 2e8f3e06fb (tests/xe_evict|exec_threads: Use fd reopen
>> > > > to avoid corrupting global data) I simply changed tests which
>> > > > corrupted device list global variable. i915 didn't use opening
>> > > > devices in multithreaded tests but this changed with xe.
>> > > >
>> > > > Device scan is now unconditional so we may change device list
>> > > > variable visibility to TLS. With this reverting of above commit
>> > > > should be safe (but I'm not sure is it worth to do this).
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > What about adding Fixes: tag? It is not a kernel so no strict
>> > > rules here, up to you.
>> >
>> > I don't if any freedesktop issue was created for this, maybe Lucas
>> > knows about it.
>>
>> fdo issue would use a Closes:, not Fixes:
>>
>> We do have some issues in which the device "disappears" after certain
>> tests. They are usually created and closed as "cannot reproduce" after
>> some time.
>>
>> I don't think we can point to any bug with 100% confidence it actually
>> closes it - there may be other bugs lurking around on either kernel or
>> igt.
>>
>> For this specific commit (not the one before) maybe we can point to the
>> commit first using multiple threads, but I don't think it's really
>> accurate.
>
>So if you don't mind I would merge it as it is (patches 1-2) with reprase
>of commit title as Kamil suggested for second patch. If you won't oppose
>I'm going to merge this tomorrow (no negative answer means agreement).

agreed, this can be merged as is.

Lucas De Marchi