[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] igt: Correct the return value for drm short_buffer read

[Zhang, Xiong Y]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Wilson [mailto:chris at chris-wilson.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 7:31 PM
> To: Zhang, Xiong Y
> Cc: intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] igt: Correct the return value for drm
> short_buffer read
> 
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 10:14:15AM +0000, Zhang, Xiong Y wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Chris Wilson [mailto:chris at chris-wilson.co.uk]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 5:53 PM
> > > To: Zhang, Xiong Y
> > > Cc: intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] igt: Correct the return value for
> > > drm short_buffer read
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 03:52:11PM +0800, Xiong Zhang wrote:
> > > > After i915 commit:
> > > > commit bd008e5b2953186fc0c6633a885ade95e7043800
> > > > Author: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > > > Date:   Tue Oct 7 14:13:51 2014 +0100
> > > >
> > > >     drm: Implement O_NONBLOCK support on /dev/dri/cardN
> > > >
> > > > the return value for drm short_buffer read is -1 and errno is EAGAIN.
> > >
> > > No, it is not.
> > > -Chris
> > Without this patch, system fail in short-buffer-block and
> short-buffer-nonblock subtest.
> > With this patch, these two subtest could pass.
> 
> That's the point of the test, the kernel behaviour is wrong. There is a patch to fix
> the kernel.
> -Chris
[Zhang, Xiong Y] Oh, I know it. Thanks.
So could you send this patch to fix it ?
> 
> --
> Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre