On 2016-09-14 08:18 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:40:18AM -0400, Robert Foss wrote:
On 2016-09-13 07:03 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
Try:
int __sw_sync_fence_create(int fd, int32_t seqno) /* int32_t not unsigned ? */
{
struct sw_sync_create_fence_data data;
memset(&data, 0, sizeof(data));
data.value = seqno;
if (igt_ioctl(fd, SW_SYNC_IOCT_CREATE_FENCE, &data))
return -errno;
return data.fence;
}
int sw_sync_fence_create(int fd, int32_t seqno)
{
int fence = __sw_sync_fence_create(fd, seqno);
igt_assert(fence >= 0);
return fence;
}
Then only in the test code do you send garbage and check for the
expected errno.
What would the corresponding negative test code look like?
A call to __sw_sync_fence_create? Then __sw_sync_fence_create would
have to be made accessible outside of lib/sw_sync.
Or maybe creating a second user of __sw_sync_fence_create along the
lines of sw_sync_fence_create_fail with an inverted igt_assert check
is what you're suggesting.
Exactly. Make the raw unchecked version available to tests. We have been
using __gem_foo() and gem_foo() to identify the difference. __gem_foo()
reports the error to the caller (so that they can feed in different
values of garbage and check for different errno, or maybe used as a
probe to see if the kernel supports such a function) and gem_foo() for
everyone else where we want to just focus on writing a test and hide the
error handling clutter.
Try not to put the error handling tests in the library itself.
Thanks!
Coming up in v4.
Rob.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
