On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 01:35:46PM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> On 5/19/25 10:22 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 01:27:05PM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> >> In preparation to improve error handling throughout all test cases,
> >> introduce a macro to check for EDEADLK and automate the restart of the
> >> atomic sequence.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocal...@collabora.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_hdmi_state_helper_test.c | 10 ++++++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_hdmi_state_helper_test.c 
> >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_hdmi_state_helper_test.c
> >> index 
> >> c8969ee6518954ab4496d3a4398f428bf4104a36..c8bb131d63ea6d0c9e166c8d9ba5e403118cd9f1
> >>  100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_hdmi_state_helper_test.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_hdmi_state_helper_test.c
> >> @@ -224,6 +224,16 @@ drm_kunit_helper_connector_hdmi_init(struct kunit 
> >> *test,
> >>                            test_edid_hdmi_1080p_rgb_max_200mhz);
> >>  }
> >>  
> >> +#define drm_kunit_atomic_restart_on_deadlock(ret, state, ctx, start) do { 
> >> \
> >> +  if (ret == -EDEADLK) {                                                  
> >> \
> >> +          if (state)                                                      
> >> \
> >> +                  drm_atomic_state_clear(state);                          
> >> \
> >> +          ret = drm_modeset_backoff(ctx);                                 
> >> \
> >> +          if (!ret)                                                       
> >> \
> >> +                  goto start;                                             
> >> \
> >> +  }                                                                       
> >> \
> >> +} while (0)
> >> +
> > 
> > I'm not sure here either, for pretty much the same reason. As far as
> > locking goes, I really think we should prefer something explicit even if
> > it means a bit more boilerplate.
> > 
> > If you still want to push this forward though, this has nothing to do
> > with kunit so it should be made a common helper. 
> 
> Ack.
> 
> > I do think it should be
> > done in a separate series though. Ever-expanding series are a nightmare,
> > both to contribute and to review :)
> 
> Indeed, let me take this separately.
> 
> If you agree, I'd prefer to drop EDEADLK handling from the new tests as
> well, to allow sorting this out for all in a consistent manner.

We can't unfortunately. Most CI runners now run with WW_DEBUG that will
test for EDEADBLK handling.

Maxime

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to