Re: [PATCH i-g-t 1/3] tests/intel/xe_exec_reset: Add a comment about return for syncobj wait

[Niranjana Vishwanathapura <niranjana.vishwanathapura@intel.com>]

On Thu, Apr 09, 2026 at 08:36:59PM +0000, Stuart Summers wrote:
>Add a comment to the syncobj wait after a hanging submission
>to indicate that even for the hang case, we expect the syncobj
>wait to return successfully as opposed to the wait ufence case
>where we only return successful if hardware did in fact execute
>the batch through the MI_USER_INTERRUPT to satisfy the wait ufence.
>
>Signed-off-by: Stuart Summers <stuart.summers@intel.com>
>---
> lib/xe/xe_legacy.c | 7 ++++++-
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>diff --git a/lib/xe/xe_legacy.c b/lib/xe/xe_legacy.c
>index 084445305..6aeddc578 100644
>--- a/lib/xe/xe_legacy.c
>+++ b/lib/xe/xe_legacy.c
>@@ -181,8 +181,13 @@ xe_legacy_test_mode(int fd, struct drm_xe_engine_class_instance *eci,
> 		return;
> 	}
>
>-	for (i = 0; i < n_exec_queues && n_execs; i++)
>+	for (i = 0; i < n_exec_queues && n_execs; i++) {
>+		/*
>+		 * Expectation here is that on reset, submissions will
>+		 * still satisfy the syncobj_wait.
>+		 */
> 		igt_assert(syncobj_wait(fd, &syncobjs[i], 1, INT64_MAX, 0, NULL));
>+	}
>
> 	igt_assert(syncobj_wait(fd, &sync[0].handle, 1, INT64_MAX, 0, NULL));
>

LGTM
Reviewed-by: Niranjana Vishwanathapura <niranjana.vishwanathapura@intel.com>

>-- 
>2.43.0
>