[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t] tests/gem_reset_stats: Fix retrieval of hangcheck stats expectation

[Antonio Argenziano]

On 08/12/17 08:46, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Antonio Argenziano (2017-12-08 16:27:17)
>> The test expected IOCTL 'I915_GET_RESET_STATS' would return an error
>> when not root. That is no longer true in the driver and therefore
>> the test was incorrectly failing.
>>
>> Cc: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry at intel.com>
>> Cc: Arkadiusz Hiler <arkadiusz.hiler at intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Antonio Argenziano <antonio.argenziano at intel.com>
>> ---
>>   tests/gem_reset_stats.c | 22 +++++++++++++++-------
>>   1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/gem_reset_stats.c b/tests/gem_reset_stats.c
>> index edc40767..83c91f0f 100644
>> --- a/tests/gem_reset_stats.c
>> +++ b/tests/gem_reset_stats.c
>> @@ -605,10 +605,7 @@ static void test_reset_count(const struct intel_execution_engine *e,
>>   
>>                  c2 = get_reset_count(fd, ctx);
>>   
>> -               if (ctx == 0)
>> -                       igt_assert(c2 == -EPERM);
>> -               else
>> -                       igt_assert(c2 == 0);
>> +               igt_assert(c2 == 0);
>>          }
>>   
>>          igt_waitchildren();
>> @@ -619,6 +616,11 @@ static void test_reset_count(const struct intel_execution_engine *e,
>>          close(fd);
>>   }
>>   
>> +static int __get_reset_stats(int fd, struct local_drm_i915_reset_stats *rs)
>> +{
>> +       return drmIoctl(fd, GET_RESET_STATS_IOCTL, &rs);
>> +}
>> +
>>   static int _test_params(int fd, int ctx, uint32_t flags, uint32_t pad)
>>   {
>>          struct local_drm_i915_reset_stats rs;
>> @@ -644,10 +646,16 @@ static void _check_param_ctx(const int fd, const int ctx, const cap_t cap)
>>          const uint32_t bad = rand() + 1;
>>   
>>          if (ctx == 0) {
>> -               if (cap == root)
>>                          igt_assert_eq(_test_params(fd, ctx, 0, 0), 0);
> 
> Spurious indenting leftover.
> 
>> -               else
>> -                       igt_assert_eq(_test_params(fd, ctx, 0, 0), -EPERM);
>> +               if (cap != root) {
> 
> So what are you expecting to happen if you do happen to be rot? Is this
> test redundant, which is why you skipped it?

Yes, I think it is redundant because the only expectation for root is 
for the IOCTL to be successful as it is for non root users (that is why 
I left the first assert to be run unconditionally), and, even if root is 
supposed to get the correct reset_count value, unless I am missing 
something, that test is not in the scope of this subtest.

-Antonio

> -Chris
>