Re: [PATCH v4 14/23] drm/tests: hdmi: Add macro to support EDEADLK handling

[Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2695 bytes --]

On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 07:47:00PM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> On 5/22/25 7:06 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 01:35:46PM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> >> On 5/19/25 10:22 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 01:27:05PM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> >>>> In preparation to improve error handling throughout all test cases,
> >>>> introduce a macro to check for EDEADLK and automate the restart of the
> >>>> atomic sequence.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocaltea@collabora.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_hdmi_state_helper_test.c | 10 ++++++++++
> >>>>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_hdmi_state_helper_test.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_hdmi_state_helper_test.c
> >>>> index c8969ee6518954ab4496d3a4398f428bf4104a36..c8bb131d63ea6d0c9e166c8d9ba5e403118cd9f1 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_hdmi_state_helper_test.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_hdmi_state_helper_test.c
> >>>> @@ -224,6 +224,16 @@ drm_kunit_helper_connector_hdmi_init(struct kunit *test,
> >>>>  				test_edid_hdmi_1080p_rgb_max_200mhz);
> >>>>  }
> >>>>  
> >>>> +#define drm_kunit_atomic_restart_on_deadlock(ret, state, ctx, start) do {	\
> >>>> +	if (ret == -EDEADLK) {							\
> >>>> +		if (state)							\
> >>>> +			drm_atomic_state_clear(state);				\
> >>>> +		ret = drm_modeset_backoff(ctx);					\
> >>>> +		if (!ret)							\
> >>>> +			goto start;						\
> >>>> +	}									\
> >>>> +} while (0)
> >>>> +
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure here either, for pretty much the same reason. As far as
> >>> locking goes, I really think we should prefer something explicit even if
> >>> it means a bit more boilerplate.
> >>>
> >>> If you still want to push this forward though, this has nothing to do
> >>> with kunit so it should be made a common helper. 
> >>
> >> Ack.
> >>
> >>> I do think it should be
> >>> done in a separate series though. Ever-expanding series are a nightmare,
> >>> both to contribute and to review :)
> >>
> >> Indeed, let me take this separately.
> >>
> >> If you agree, I'd prefer to drop EDEADLK handling from the new tests as
> >> well, to allow sorting this out for all in a consistent manner.
> > 
> > We can't unfortunately. Most CI runners now run with WW_DEBUG that will
> > test for EDEADBLK handling.
> 
> Ok, in that case I'll proceed with the explicit error handling for the
> new tests only.  And as soon as the series gets merged, I'll come up
> with a common helper and apply it for all tests.

Sounds like a good plan :)

Maxime

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 273 bytes --]