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