From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tests/gem_userptr_blits: Race between
 object creation and multi-threaded mm ops
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 10:36:15 +0100
Message-ID: <53C8EA8F.3080702@linux.intel.com>
References: <1405332206-6292-1-git-send-email-tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
 <20140714103416.GB2319@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
 <53C3B48A.2050306@linux.intel.com>
 <20140714130725.GC2319@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
 <53C3D772.7090004@linux.intel.com>
 <20140714132737.GD2319@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
 <8FCC70911F3E9548866CA0E51893BCC31A1D28A1@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20])
 by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 371B46E74F
 for <Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 02:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <8FCC70911F3E9548866CA0E51893BCC31A1D28A1@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
 <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
 <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org
Sender: "Intel-gfx" <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
To: "Gore, Tim" <tim.gore@intel.com>, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: "Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org" <Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org


On 07/18/2014 10:20 AM, Gore, Tim wrote:
> Unfortunately Android threads do not support cancel and testcancel, so this
> Test cannot build for android.
> Do we really need a cancellation point, since we don't need to cancel the thread.
> Tvrtko's original solution seemed workable, if a bit less polished.

Solution with a flag is fine in my opinion, but I also need to get rid 
of asserts in the thread. This is was Chris was pointing out, I always 
forget that threads have too much independence so SIGBART in a thread 
won't kill the process. I've put it on my TODO for the lower priority 
tasks, since I would still like to propagate any failures in the thread 
to subtest fail.

Tvrtko