Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] test/kms_dp_dsc: Basic KMS test to validate VESA DSC on DP/eDP

From: Petri Latvala <petri.latvala@intel.com>
To: Antonio Argenziano <antonio.argenziano@intel.com>,
	Manasi Navare <manasi.d.navare@intel.com>
Cc: igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Anusha Srivatsa <anusha.srivatsa@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] test/kms_dp_dsc: Basic KMS test to validate VESA DSC on DP/eDP
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 10:48:24 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181017074824.GO17124@platvala-desk.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3b41c1f5-f149-43a9-d177-d9a751b226e0@intel.com>

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 02:14:59PM -0700, Antonio Argenziano wrote:
> > > > +		igt_assert_eq(ret, 0);
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > > +	close(drm_fd);
> > > > +
> > > > +	igt_assert_eq(ret, 0);
> > > 
> > > 'ret' is already checked in the subtest also, this would fail if you don't
> > > run the subtest.
> > 
> > If I dont run the subtest, it will use the initialized value of ret which is 0.
> > It will only fail if update_display returns a negative value.
> 
> Sorry, you are right I misread that. But, it will not be this assert to fire
> if ret != 0 but the one in the subtest. My point was that this statement
> seems a bit redundant and could be eliminated.

It's not only redundant, it's invalid to call igt_assert when not
inside an igt_fixture or a subtest. See lib/igt_core.c:1180,
igt_can_fail().

-- 
Petri Latvala
_______________________________________________
igt-dev mailing list
igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/igt-dev