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

[Michel Thierry]

On 08/12/17 09:07, Antonio Argenziano wrote:
> 
> 
> 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
I would add the commit that changed the behaviour,

...when not root. This is no longer true in the driver since commit 
4c9c0d09741d ("drm/i915: Fix retrieval of hangcheck stats") 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>