[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t] tests/gem_exec_basic: don't use gem_require_ring to check ring availability

[Daniele Ceraolo Spurio]

On 29/01/16 11:35, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:16:37AM +0000, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote:
>>
>> On 29/01/16 10:58, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 09:21:33AM +0000, daniele.ceraolospurio at intel.com wrote:
>>>> From: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio at intel.com>
>>>>
>>>> gem_require_ring will submit an execbuf using the provided flags and
>>>> skip the test if the ioctl fails. This test is however designed to catch
>>>> issues with the ioctl, so it should fail if the ioctl fails on a ring
>>>> that the HW possesses.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of using gem_require_ring we can use the getparam ioctl. The new
>>>> checker has been added to the test file and not to the commmon library
>>>> because this test is the only special case where we want to not use
>>>> gem_has_ring
>>> That would be gem_exec_param.
>>> -Chris
>> I don't understand what you mean, can you elaborate a bit?
> For the purposes of checking that the kernel honours the ABI, the tests
> belong in gem_exec_params.
>
> For the purposes of CI, a testing going from PASS -> SKIP is just as
> indicative of a problem as test going from PASS -> FAIL or any other
> state.

The difference would be that the CI system still reports that BAT 
succeeded if one or more tests go from PASS to SKIP (e.g. 
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2016-January/086586.html).

>   
>> What I wanted to fix here is the fact that the logic to skip the
>> test and the test itself are identical, which means that this test
>> can't fail. As far as I can tell gem_exec_param is trying to catch
>> errors in the handling of invalid flags, while in this test we check
>> for errors in the handling of valid flags instead.
> Basically the logic is repeated, that is not an issue for its purpose.
> -Chris

This patch can be dropped then.

Thanks,
Daniele