[PATCH v1 4/6] test: fence: Increase timeout for fence test

[Laurent Pinchart]

On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 03:11:19PM +0100, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> Quoting Laurent Pinchart (2024-04-25 00:42:22)
> > On slower machines, a 1s timeout to capture frames with vimc can be too
> > short and cause test failures. Make the timeout proportional to the
> > number of frames expected to be captured, using a conservative low
> > estimate of the frame rate at 2fps.
> > 
> > By itself, that change could increase the test time quite substantially
> > on fast platforms, so break from the capture loop as soon as we capture
> > enough frames.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart at ideasonboard.com>
> > ---
> >  test/fence.cpp | 5 +++--
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/test/fence.cpp b/test/fence.cpp
> > index 7949bfbb176b..4ce6dfa23590 100644
> > --- a/test/fence.cpp
> > +++ b/test/fence.cpp
> > @@ -315,8 +315,9 @@ int FenceTest::run()
> >  
> >         /* Loop for one second. */
> 
> We're no longer looping for one second ?

You're right, I'll update this.

> >         Timer timer;
> > -       timer.start(1000ms);
> > -       while (timer.isRunning() && expectedCompletionResult_) {
> > +       timer.start(500ms * (signalledRequestId_ + 1));
> 
> So that's where the * 2 is now coming in? Maybe 'signalledRequestId_'
> just isn't named well...

signalledRequestId_ is the last request that we need to test. The
timeout allows 500ms per request. This has nothing to do with the * 2.

> > +       while (timer.isRunning() && expectedCompletionResult_ &&
> > +              completedRequestId_ <= signalledRequestId_ + 1) {
> >                 if (completedRequestId_ == signalledRequestId_ - 1 && setFence_)
> >                         /*
> >                          * signalledRequestId_ has just completed and it has

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart