[Intel-gfx] [I-G-T 3/3] igt/gem_mocs_settings: Reduce the amount of cascading failures

[Antoine, Peter]

Drop this patch.

Peter.

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Vetter [mailto:daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch] On Behalf Of Daniel Vetter
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 8:37 AM
To: Antoine, Peter <peter.antoine at intel.com>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch>; Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>; intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [I-G-T 3/3] igt/gem_mocs_settings: Reduce the amount of cascading failures

On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 02:47:13PM +0000, Antoine, Peter wrote:
> They do run separately. It's just that when one fails it does not close the fd and the next cannot open it as master.
> Is there a mechanism for closing the fd (or any other tidy up on close.failure).
> 
> As the test runner implements a psudo exception handler it should 
> really have a "final"/"skip" handler so that the tidyup can be done cleanly.
> 
> That was the question that was asked and not answered.

#define igt_finally igt_fixture

At least that's the best thing we came up with when last discussing this.
And I did answer your question by claiming that it's not really a problem when you run tests (in CI) like they should be run. And for manual testing I'm not sure it's all that valuable really. Hence why I didn't end up merging the above with a bit of documentation to explain it.
-Daniel

> 
> Peter. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Vetter [mailto:daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch] On Behalf Of 
> Daniel Vetter
> Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 3:37 PM
> To: Antoine, Peter <peter.antoine at intel.com>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>; 
> intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [I-G-T 3/3] igt/gem_mocs_settings: Reduce the 
> amount of cascading failures
> 
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 10:33:17AM +0100, Peter Antoine wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Aug 2016, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:34:36AM +0100, Peter Antoine wrote:
> > > > If one of the previous tests fails then the following tests fail.
> > > > This patch means that the following tests do not fail when the 
> > > > previous test fails (for some cases).
> > > 
> > > The problem is just gem_mocs_settings hasn't split its tests up 
> > > into subtests.
> > Chris,
> > 
> > Can you expand? The tests are at the minimal size for sensible 
> > results (I think). The problem is opening the driver for master when 
> > the test fails then the following tests will fail as master is not closed.
> > 
> > Is there a mechanism in the igt framework for doing this close on 
> > failure/skip?
> > 
> > If I move the master open code in the fixtures will this get called 
> > on all exit cases?
> 
> For a real test runner you need to run each individual subtest 
> separate (to avoid contamination). Then process exit will take care of 
> any cleanup needed with file descriptors. For anything else there's 
> exit handlers, but they're not 100% reliable
> 
> Adding hacks to make subtest runs differently isn't really how igt tests are meant to be. Hence I concure on Chris' objection here.
> -Daniel
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> http://blog.ffwll.ch

--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch