From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCD716E872 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 03:55:12 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 06:57:06 +0300 From: Petri Latvala Message-ID: References: <20210614163704.365989-1-jason@jlekstrand.net> <20210614163902.366168-19-jason@jlekstrand.net> <87o8c65ywy.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> <87mtrq5xsl.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> <87lf7a5xgo.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 68/77] igt/dummyload: Require an intel_ctx_t for POLL_RUN and !ALL_ENGINES List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: igt-dev-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "igt-dev" To: Jason Ekstrand Cc: IGT GPU Tools List-ID: On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 12:30:42PM -0500, Jason Ekstrand wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 9:56 PM Dixit, Ashutosh > wrote: > > > > On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 19:49:14 -0700, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote: > > > > > > I have another related question/observation. If what I am saying above is > > > indeed true, is the "ctx_id" field in "struct igt_spin_factory" ever > > > really used? If not we should delete it from the struct and we can get rid > > > of these asserts. > > > > > > This is because I am saying above that we have an igt_assert(opts->ctx) > > > above in igt_spin_factory() when "opts->engine != ALL_ENGINES" and then we > > > have another igt_assert(opts->ctx) in emit_recursive_batch() when > > > "opts->engine == ALL_ENGINES". So it appears we must always have > > > intel_ctx_t and can never use the "ctx_id" field in "struct > > > igt_spin_factory" so it should be removed. > > > > > > So appears the spinner interface will always need a intel_ctx_t (meaning > > > more code changes). > > > > Sorry for harping on this again. Note that even with the code in this > > series test like igt@gem_ctx_exec@norecovery (which have not been modified) > > should now be broken. The code in this series is: > > Yup. That was a miss. Not sure why CI didn't catch it. The reason is tests/intel-ci/blacklist.txt:igt@gem_ctx_exec@(?!.*basic).* -- Petri Latvala _______________________________________________ igt-dev mailing list igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/igt-dev