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

[Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>]

On Mon, Jul 07, 2025 at 02:38:07PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> 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.
> 

Hmm, this seems to work in our CI pretty reliably but in general I am
not a fan of selftests, particularly ones so fragile that any small
change of behavior breaks the tests. If this is indeed one of cases
(testing really specific behavior), fine with disabling it.

> > 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.
>

See above. Yea it Intel's main (IGTs) CI work, I'd say there is about
99% confidence that the changes you are making haven't broke anything.

Matt
 
> Christian.
> 
> > 
> > Matt