On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 02:47:13PM +0000, Antoine, Peter wrote: > They do run separately. It's just that when one fails it does not close the > fd and the next cannot open it as master. > Is there a mechanism for closing the fd (or any other tidy up on > close.failure). > > As the test runner implements a psudo exception handler it should really > have a "final"/"skip" handler so that the tidyup can be done cleanly. > > That was the question that was asked and not answered.
#define igt_finally igt_fixture At least that's the best thing we came up with when last discussing this. And I did answer your question by claiming that it's not really a problem when you run tests (in CI) like they should be run. And for manual testing I'm not sure it's all that valuable really. Hence why I didn't end up merging the above with a bit of documentation to explain it. -Daniel > > Peter. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Vetter [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Daniel Vetter > Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 3:37 PM > To: Antoine, Peter <[email protected]> > Cc: Chris Wilson <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [I-G-T 3/3] igt/gem_mocs_settings: Reduce the amount > of cascading failures > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 10:33:17AM +0100, Peter Antoine wrote: > > On Mon, 1 Aug 2016, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:34:36AM +0100, Peter Antoine wrote: > > > > If one of the previous tests fails then the following tests fail. > > > > This patch means that the following tests do not fail when the > > > > previous test fails (for some cases). > > > > > > The problem is just gem_mocs_settings hasn't split its tests up into > > > subtests. > > Chris, > > > > Can you expand? The tests are at the minimal size for sensible results > > (I think). The problem is opening the driver for master when the test > > fails then the following tests will fail as master is not closed. > > > > Is there a mechanism in the igt framework for doing this close on > > failure/skip? > > > > If I move the master open code in the fixtures will this get called on > > all exit cases? > > For a real test runner you need to run each individual subtest separate (to > avoid contamination). Then process exit will take care of any cleanup needed > with file descriptors. For anything else there's exit handlers, but they're > not 100% reliable > > Adding hacks to make subtest runs differently isn't really how igt tests are > meant to be. Hence I concure on Chris' objection here. > -Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > http://blog.ffwll.ch -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
