| Message ID | 20180502111326.30196-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Quoting Chris Wilson (2018-05-02 14:13:26) > When waiting for a finite batch, all that we require is that the batch > completes. If it takes the full second (or longer) for us to wake up and > notice the completed batch is immaterial, so only assert that we don't > report an infinite timeout afterwards. > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> May wanna Cc igt-dev@... Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com> Regards, Joonas
Quoting Joonas Lahtinen (2018-05-03 15:05:38) > Quoting Chris Wilson (2018-05-02 14:13:26) > > When waiting for a finite batch, all that we require is that the batch > > completes. If it takes the full second (or longer) for us to wake up and > > notice the completed batch is immaterial, so only assert that we don't > > report an infinite timeout afterwards. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > May wanna Cc igt-dev@... Seemed to be an i915-centric issue, just matching the test code to kernel behaviour. -Chris
diff --git a/tests/gem_wait.c b/tests/gem_wait.c index 1d10055bb..61d8a4059 100644 --- a/tests/gem_wait.c +++ b/tests/gem_wait.c @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ static void basic(int fd, unsigned engine, unsigned flags) igt_spin_batch_set_timeout(spin, NSEC_PER_SEC/2); wait.timeout_ns = NSEC_PER_SEC; /* 1.0s */ igt_assert_eq(__gem_wait(fd, &wait), 0); - igt_assert(wait.timeout_ns > 0); + igt_assert(wait.timeout_ns >= 0); } else { wait.timeout_ns = -1; igt_assert_eq(__gem_wait(fd, &wait), 0);
When waiting for a finite batch, all that we require is that the batch completes. If it takes the full second (or longer) for us to wake up and notice the completed batch is immaterial, so only assert that we don't report an infinite timeout afterwards. Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> --- tests/gem_wait.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)