Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/ttm: rename ttm_bo_put to _fini

["Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>]

On 03.07.25 00:01, Matthew Brost wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/tests/ttm_bo_test.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/tests/ttm_bo_test.c
>> index 6c77550c51af..5426b435f702 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/tests/ttm_bo_test.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/tests/ttm_bo_test.c
>> @@ -379,7 +379,7 @@ static void ttm_bo_unreserve_bulk(struct kunit *test)
>>  	dma_resv_fini(resv);
>>  }
>>  
>> -static void ttm_bo_put_basic(struct kunit *test)
>> +static void ttm_bo_fini_basic(struct kunit *test)
>>  {
>>  	struct ttm_test_devices *priv = test->priv;
>>  	struct ttm_buffer_object *bo;
>> @@ -410,7 +410,7 @@ static void ttm_bo_put_basic(struct kunit *test)
>>  	dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
>>  	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, err, 0);
>>  
>> -	ttm_bo_put(bo);
>> +	ttm_bo_fini(bo);
> 
> Intel's CI [1], see Kunit tab, is indicating an issue with the
> selftests.

Even without any change the ttm_bo_validate subtest is crashing for me and I was about to disable those crashing tests.

My guess is that the test never worked 100% reliable and relies on some incorrect assumptions.

> Unsure if this suggestion would fix the kunit failure, but
> would it not be better to just ref count gem BOs in the kunit tests and
> create a mock drm_gem_object_funcs ops in in which free calls
> ttm_bo_fini? Then in selftests replace ttm_bo_fini with
> drm_gem_object_put?

Yeah that is one possible solution I had in mind as well, but I thought about disabling the failed test first and then discussion with Thomas what to do about it.

Christian.

> 
> Matt