[Intel-gfx] [igt-dev] [PATH i-g-t 2/2] core: Show backtrace from igt_skip_on_simulation

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 14/09/2018 10:12, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:33:06AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
>>
>> igt_skip_on_simulation is called both directly from tests but also from
>> library helpers. In the latter case especially the logged caller name is
>> useless since it is always the helper itself. What we instead want to know
>> is who is the caller.
>>
>> Trivial approach would be to move the helper to a header as static inline,
>> but due the longjmp in it it can never be inlined. Alternative option is
>> to print a backtrace from it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
>> Cc: Radoslaw Szwichtenberg <radoslaw.szwichtenberg at intel.com>
>> ---
>>   lib/igt_core.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++----
>>   1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/igt_core.c b/lib/igt_core.c
>> index 23bb858fd886..990abc5a36b3 100644
>> --- a/lib/igt_core.c
>> +++ b/lib/igt_core.c
>> @@ -2065,14 +2065,26 @@ bool igt_run_in_simulation(void)
>>    */
>>   void igt_skip_on_simulation(void)
>>   {
>> +	bool in_simulation;
>> +
>>   	if (igt_only_list_subtests())
>>   		return;
>>   
>> +	in_simulation = igt_run_in_simulation();
>> +
>>   	if (!igt_can_fail()) {
>> -		igt_fixture
>> -			igt_require(!igt_run_in_simulation());
>> -	} else
>> -		igt_require(!igt_run_in_simulation());
>> +		igt_fixture {
>> +			if (in_simulation) {
>> +				print_backtrace();
>> +				igt_require(!in_simulation);
>> +			}
>> +		}
>> +	} else {
>> +		if (in_simulation) {
>> +			print_backtrace();
>> +			igt_require(!in_simulation);
> 
> Hm, why don't we go right ahead and push this into igt_skip()? There's a
> pile of other igt_require, and we tend to push a lot of these into the
> library. So they have all the same problem.

Maybe.. I wasn't 100% this was a good idea to start with, or in another 
words, that other people would consider it a problem. Since the downside 
is test output gets more verbose on skips, or some could say more noisy.

So I basically floated the patch to see if it will provoke some 
responses. :)

Regards,

Tvrtko