[Intel-gfx] [PATCH igt 11/24] igt/drv_hangman: Skip if resets are disallowed

[Daniel Vetter]

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 09:18:35PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> If we tell the machine to reset but they are disallowed, we will leave
> the system in a wedged state, preventing the majority of subsequent
> tests.
> ---
>  tests/drv_hangman.c | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/drv_hangman.c b/tests/drv_hangman.c
> index 0551ec16..de57e128 100644
> --- a/tests/drv_hangman.c
> +++ b/tests/drv_hangman.c
> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
>  #include <limits.h>
>  #include <sys/types.h>
>  #include <sys/stat.h>
> +#include <sys/ioctl.h>
>  #include <fcntl.h>
>  
>  #include "igt_sysfs.h"
> @@ -239,7 +240,9 @@ igt_main
>  		int idx;
>  
>  		device = drm_open_driver(DRIVER_INTEL);
> +		igt_allow_hang(device, 0, 0);

I think an igt_require_hang_ring here would be better self-documenting.
Also, igt_allow/disallow_hang are lacking gtkdocs.

What I'm also wondering is where our unexpected hang detection has gone
to. In the past we've reported any gpu hang at error level, except when
igt indicated it's expected. We seem to have lost that safety net, at
least all the unexpected gpu hangs I've recently fixed in igt did not
result in dmesg spam. This seems to have happened as part of the big reset
rework we've done earlier this year, but I'm not entirely sure.
-Daniel

>  		igt_require_gem(device);
> +
>  		sysfs = igt_sysfs_open(device, &idx);
>  		igt_assert(sysfs != -1);
>  	}
> -- 
> 2.13.3
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

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