From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: vinod.koul@intel.com (Vinod Koul) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 06:15:25 +0530 Subject: [PATCH] dmatest: do not allow to interrupt ongoing tests In-Reply-To: <20130605171001.GC26663@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1369308593-3723-1-git-send-email-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <1369638667.29283.197.camel@smile> <20130605171001.GC26663@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: <20130607004525.GH23045@intel.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 06:10:01PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 08:11:07AM +0100, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, 2013-05-24 at 23:55 +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > On Thu, 23 May 2013, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > > > When user interrupts ongoing transfers the dmatest may end up with console > > > > lockup, oops, or data mismatch. This patch prevents user to abort any ongoing > > > > test. > > > > > > Personally I would be against such a change. What about interrupting the > > > test with rmmod? > > > Is it still possible after this your patch or not? If not > > > - this doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Why don't we just fix those > > > bugs, that you're describing? > > > > The behaviour of the module is returned to the same page by this patch > > as it was before (w/o debugfs). > > > > The user can interrupt tests by rmmod, but it will take time up to > > timeout. > > > > I appreciate if you can do a deeper analysis of what happened in > > case Will reported. > > Did this query hold up the application of this patch? I'd really like to see > *something* in 3.10, otherwise dmatest will be broken. I though we had some data corruption on subsequent tests, or was that different one? -- ~Vinod