Re: [PATCH] tests/gem_userptr_blits: Race between object creation and multi-threaded mm ops

[Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>]

On 07/14/2014 02:07 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>> You don't have any cancellation points in the loop. (mmap may or may not
>>> be, it is not required to be.)
>>>
>>> But rather than use a global, just pass a pointer to a local struct.
>>
>> It doesn't need both a cancellation point and a flag. Should I just
>> add pthread_testcancel in the loop and not have any flag at all?
>
> testcancel also neatly avoids the handwavely lack of mb().

Barrier for what? But it doesn't matter, I'll re-spin with testcancel.

>>> Oh, and igt_assert. But kill the asserts in mm_stress_thread() first.
>>
>> Why remove completely? My thinking was to use assert vs igt_assert
>> to distinguish between assumptions about system behaviour, and
>> igt_assert for assertions about tested functionality.
>
> If the assert fires you make the igt test runner angry. Might as well
> report a test failure rather than break down completely.

I am not familiar with the test runner, but if it cannot handle a test 
failing in a way other than it expects it so it deserves to be angry. :) 
But OK, I'll change it.

Tvrtko