Chris Wilson <[email protected]> writes: > As we ordinarily use a spinning batch to trigger a hang, we cannot do so > without execbuf. On the other hand, if we do a manual reset of the > wedged driver, we expect it to remain wedged and for the reset to fail;
by 'manual' you are referring to '-1' on i915_wedged debugfs entry? -Mika > failing the test. Even if we remove the igt_assert(!wedged), the test is > suspect as we don't know if the reset took place and so do not know if > the conditions the test is trying to setup apply. > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]> > --- > lib/igt_gt.c | 7 +++++++ > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/lib/igt_gt.c b/lib/igt_gt.c > index 4569fd36b..89b318ae6 100644 > --- a/lib/igt_gt.c > +++ b/lib/igt_gt.c > @@ -162,6 +162,13 @@ igt_hang_t igt_allow_hang(int fd, unsigned ctx, unsigned > flags) > }; > unsigned ban; > > + /* > + * If the driver is already wedged, we don't expect it to be able > + * to recover from reset and for it to remain wedged. It's hard to > + * say even if we do hang/reset making the test suspect. > + */ > + igt_require_gem(fd); > + > igt_assert(igt_sysfs_set_parameter > (fd, "reset", "%d", INT_MAX /* any reset method */)); > > -- > 2.18.0 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
