lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] drm/drm_vblank: Change EINVAL by the correct errno
On 01/14, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 13-01-2019 om 21:23 schreef Rodrigo Siqueira:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I resend this patch for CI via “intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org” as
> > Daniel suggested, and I got a feedback that reported an issue as can be
> > seen here:
> >
> > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/51147/
> >
> > After a careful analysis of what happened, I concluded that the problem
> > is related to the function “igt_wait_for_vblank_count()” in “igt_kms.c”.
> > This function has the following assert:
> >
> > igt_assert(drmWaitVBlank(drm_fd, &wait_vbl) == 0)
> >
> > This function only checks if everything went well with the
> > drmWaitVBlank() operation and does not make any other validation. IMHO
> > the patch is correct, and the problem pointed out by CI is not related
> > to this change.
>
> Hey,

Hi,

Thanks for the feedback :)

> Thanks for finding the root cause. Before upstreaming can you send a fix for i-g-t so we don't lose CI coverage after changing the behavior?

I'm just confused on my next step, should I fix the IGT test and then
resend the patch? Additionally, I noticed that tests related to vblank
wait have others issues as I pointed out here (see my last message):

https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/245784/

Is it enough if I handling EINVAL and EOPNOTSUPP in the tests? I'm
afraid, that the tests will still fail if I consider these two case;
however, I suppose that handling only EOPNOTSUPP can fix the problem,
but I'm not sure if it is the best solution.

Best Regards

> ~Maarten
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-14 11:30    [W:0.055 / U:15.688 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site