Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] tests/perf/i915_ref_count: Skip on __drm_open_driver failure

["Dixit, Ashutosh" <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 15:32:05 -0700, Ashutosh Dixit wrote:
>
> Skip early on __drm_open_driver() to generate a consistent failure
> signature for CI (rather than a follow-on igt_assert(is_i915_device(fd))).
>
> Cc: Umesh Nerlige Ramappa <umesh.nerlige.ramappa@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>
> ---
>  tests/i915/perf.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/tests/i915/perf.c b/tests/i915/perf.c
> index e641d5d2db7e..5502a3fb4e59 100644
> --- a/tests/i915/perf.c
> +++ b/tests/i915/perf.c
> @@ -4838,6 +4838,7 @@ test_i915_ref_count(void)
>	igt_debug("baseline ref count (drm fd closed) = %u\n", baseline);
>
>	drm_fd = __drm_open_driver(DRIVER_INTEL);
> +	igt_require_intel(drm_fd);

The other option might be to use igt_require_fd() here (or something like
that) which would be closer to the signature CI expects from
drm_open_driver().

At the other place in perf.c __drm_open_driver() is followed by
igt_require_gem() which skips using igt_require_intel() and that's why I
used igt_require_intel() here (instead of other options).

Maybe as long as we are skipping one way or another (and not asserting) it
should be ok?


>	devid = intel_get_drm_devid(drm_fd);
>	sysfs = igt_sysfs_open(drm_fd);
>
> --
> 2.34.1
>