[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t] tests: Mark some tests fail instead of skip

[Chris Wilson]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 04:55:46PM +0300, Gabriel Feceoru wrote:
> These checks may fail in runtime and will cause confusing
> flipping skip/pass results.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Gabriel Feceoru <gabriel.feceoru at intel.com>
> ---
>  tests/gem_exec_suspend.c     | 2 +-
>  tests/gem_exec_whisper.c     | 2 +-
>  tests/gem_reloc_overflow.c   | 2 +-
>  tests/gem_ringfill.c         | 2 +-
>  tests/gem_streaming_writes.c | 2 +-
>  5 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/gem_exec_suspend.c b/tests/gem_exec_suspend.c
> index cd133cc..1d03b4d 100644
> --- a/tests/gem_exec_suspend.c
> +++ b/tests/gem_exec_suspend.c
> @@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ static void run_test(int fd, unsigned engine, unsigned flags)
>  	obj[0].flags |= EXEC_OBJECT_WRITE;
>  	obj[1].handle = gem_create(fd, 4096);
>  	gem_write(fd, obj[1].handle, 0, &bbe, sizeof(bbe));
> -	igt_require(__gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf) == 0);
> +	igt_assert(__gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf) == 0);
>  	gem_close(fd, obj[1].handle);

Nope, here were are testing for kernel NORELOC support.

>  	memset(&reloc, 0, sizeof(reloc));
> diff --git a/tests/gem_exec_whisper.c b/tests/gem_exec_whisper.c
> index 8db475e..c55ee9c 100644
> --- a/tests/gem_exec_whisper.c
> +++ b/tests/gem_exec_whisper.c
> @@ -181,7 +181,7 @@ static void whisper(int fd, unsigned engine, unsigned flags)
>  		execbuf.flags |= LOCAL_I915_EXEC_NO_RELOC;
>  		if (gen < 6)
>  			execbuf.flags |= I915_EXEC_SECURE;
> -		igt_require(__gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf) == 0);
> +		igt_assert(__gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf) == 0);
>  		scratch = tmp[0];
>  		store = tmp[1];
>  	}

Nope, here were are testing for kernel NORELOC support.

> diff --git a/tests/gem_reloc_overflow.c b/tests/gem_reloc_overflow.c
> index d60bec9..dbff126 100644
> --- a/tests/gem_reloc_overflow.c
> +++ b/tests/gem_reloc_overflow.c
> @@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ static void reloc_tests(const char *suffix)
>  
>  		/* Make sure the batch would succeed except for the thing we're
>  		 * testing. */
> -		igt_require(__gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf) == 0);
> +		igt_assert(__gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf) == 0);

This one! This one looks ok to be assert.

>  	igt_subtest_f("batch-start-unaligned%s", suffix) {
> diff --git a/tests/gem_ringfill.c b/tests/gem_ringfill.c
> index f2dc803..1f53aac 100644
> --- a/tests/gem_ringfill.c
> +++ b/tests/gem_ringfill.c
> @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ static void run_test(int fd, unsigned ring, unsigned flags)
>  	obj[0].flags |= EXEC_OBJECT_WRITE;
>  	obj[1].handle = gem_create(fd, 1024*16 + 4096);
>  	gem_write(fd, obj[1].handle, 0, &bbe, sizeof(bbe));
> -	igt_require(__gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf) == 0);
> +	igt_assert(__gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf) == 0);

Nope, here were are testing for kernel NORELOC support.

>  	obj[1].relocs_ptr = (uintptr_t)reloc;
>  	obj[1].relocation_count = 1024;
> diff --git a/tests/gem_streaming_writes.c b/tests/gem_streaming_writes.c
> index 5d0014a..d084454 100644
> --- a/tests/gem_streaming_writes.c
> +++ b/tests/gem_streaming_writes.c
> @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ static void test_streaming(int fd, int mode, int sync)
>  	execbuf.flags = LOCAL_I915_EXEC_HANDLE_LUT;
>  	if (__gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf)) {
>  		execbuf.flags = 0;
> -		igt_require(__gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf) == 0);
> +		igt_assert(__gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf) == 0);

Nope, here were are testing for kernel NORELOC support.

Flip/flop in these should be showing up as CI fail, but that is both
correct and no reason to drop backwards compatibility?
-Chris


-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre