Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 7/8] tests/sriov_basic: validate driver binding to VFs

[Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>]

On 06.11.2023 20:59, Lukasz Laguna wrote:
> From: Katarzyna Dec <katarzyna.dec@intel.com>
> 
> Test enables VFs in range <1..totalvfs>, bind driver to all of them and
> then unbind driver from all of them.

commit message seems outdated

> 
> Signed-off-by: Katarzyna Dec <katarzyna.dec@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Lukasz Laguna <lukasz.laguna@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Laguna <lukasz.laguna@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Marcin Bernatowicz <marcin.bernatowicz@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  tests/sriov_basic.c | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 51 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/sriov_basic.c b/tests/sriov_basic.c
> index fc0914962..179731daf 100644
> --- a/tests/sriov_basic.c
> +++ b/tests/sriov_basic.c
> @@ -61,6 +61,38 @@ static void probe_disable_vfs(int pf_fd, unsigned int num_vfs)
>  	igt_assert(!err);
>  }
>  
> +/**
> + * SUBTEST: enable-vfs-bind-all-unbind-all
> + * Description:
> + *   Verify VFs enabling, binding the driver and then unbinding it from all of them
> + */
> +static void enable_vfs_bind_all_unbind_all(int pf_fd, unsigned int num_vfs)
> +{
> +	igt_debug("Using num_vfs=%u\n", num_vfs);

nit: "Testing %u VFs" ?

> +
> +	igt_require(igt_sriov_get_enabled_vfs(pf_fd) == 0);

duplicates main fixture

> +	igt_warn_on(!igt_sriov_disable_driver_autoprobe(pf_fd));
> +	igt_skip_on(igt_sriov_is_driver_autoprobe_enabled(pf_fd));

why do we need warn/skip here ?
can't we just assert that 'disable' worked ?

> +
> +	igt_warn_on(!igt_sriov_enable_vfs(pf_fd, num_vfs));

can't we just assert ?

> +	igt_assert_eq(num_vfs, igt_sriov_get_enabled_vfs(pf_fd));

why we care here ? if not all are enabled then we fail just later
and this is not a test for "enable VFs" that enabled==requested

> +	igt_warn_on(!igt_sriov_enable_driver_autoprobe(pf_fd));
> +	igt_assert(igt_sriov_is_driver_autoprobe_enabled(pf_fd));

can't we just warn ?
if that we fail to enable then probe below will fail anyway

> +
> +	for (int i = 1; i <= num_vfs; i++) {
> +		igt_assert(!igt_sriov_is_vf_drm_driver_probed(pf_fd, i));
> +		igt_assert(igt_sriov_bind_vf_drm_driver(pf_fd, i));
> +		igt_assert(igt_sriov_is_vf_drm_driver_probed(pf_fd, i));

shouldn't we just "expect" to make sure to call "disable VFs" ?

> +	}
> +
> +	for (int i = 1; i <= num_vfs; i++) {
> +		igt_assert(igt_sriov_unbind_vf_drm_driver(pf_fd, i));
> +		igt_assert(!igt_sriov_is_vf_drm_driver_probed(pf_fd, i));

do we need to have all VFs loaded ?
maybe for BAT test we can just bind/unload one VF at the time ?

otherwise it will be almost the same level of stress as in
"enable-vfs-autoprobe-on" but with 'manual probe' loop of all VFs

> +	}
> +
> +	igt_assert(igt_sriov_disable_vfs(pf_fd));
> +}
> +
>  igt_main
>  {
>  	int pf_fd;
> @@ -113,6 +145,25 @@ igt_main
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> +	igt_describe("Verify VFs enabling, binding the driver and then unbinding it from all of them");
> +	igt_subtest_with_dynamic("enable-vfs-bind-all-unbind-all") {
> +		for_each_num_vfs(pf_fd, num_vfs) {
> +			igt_dynamic_f("numvfs-%u", num_vfs) {
> +				enable_vfs_bind_all_unbind_all(pf_fd, num_vfs);
> +			}
> +		}
> +		for_random_num_vfs(pf_fd, num_vfs) {
> +			igt_dynamic_f("numvfs-random") {
> +				enable_vfs_bind_all_unbind_all(pf_fd, num_vfs);
> +			}
> +		}
> +		for_max_num_vfs(pf_fd, num_vfs) {
> +			igt_dynamic_f("numvfs-all") {
> +				enable_vfs_bind_all_unbind_all(pf_fd, num_vfs);
> +			}
> +		}
> +	}
> +
>  	igt_fixture {
>  		igt_sriov_disable_vfs(pf_fd);
>  		/* abort to avoid execution of next tests with enabled VFs */