[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t] gem_bad_reloc: Don't flip-flop between SKIP and PASS

[Damien Lespiau]

On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 04:18:39PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 01:58:54PM +0000, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> > Here is a cheap way for this test to give consistent results. This
> > doesn't change the usefulness of this test, hopefully.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau at intel.com>
> > ---
> >  tests/gem_bad_reloc.c | 8 +++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tests/gem_bad_reloc.c b/tests/gem_bad_reloc.c
> > index df0100f..ef6b52a 100644
> > --- a/tests/gem_bad_reloc.c
> > +++ b/tests/gem_bad_reloc.c
> > @@ -87,7 +87,13 @@ static int negative_reloc(int fd, unsigned flags)
> >  	gem_close(fd, gem_exec[1].handle);
> >  
> >  	igt_info("Found offset %ld for 4k batch\n", (long)gem_exec[0].offset);
> > -	igt_require(gem_exec[0].offset < BIAS);
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Ideally we'd like to be able to control where the kernel is going to
> > +	 * place the buffer. We don't SKIP here because it causes the test
> > +	 * to "randomly" flip-flop between the SKIP and PASS states.
> > +	 */
> 
> Riddle me thus: the test scripts try to ensure that every test run has
> the identical environment. Yet between runs we have different layouts of
> framebuffer objects...
> 
> To improve this test, what you could actually try is disabling all
> CRTCs. That should give consistent results.

I actually didn't manage to reproduce the erratic behaviour described in
the bug. So maybe we've already fixed what caused the flip-flopping in
the first place. Or maybe I can't reproduce it because I'm running in a
clean environment wihout having run a few dozen kms tests beforehand.

In any case, I'd rather go for the quick option that doesn't make the
worse in a too awful way and is won't regress (it's also less work, I'm
lazy).

-- 
Damien