On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:57:40PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> For the set of execbuf flags who by definition are based on whether or
> not the kernel supports that feature, the ultimate arbiter of whether or
> not the kernel accepts the flag is the kernel. The negative tests were
> second guessing the kernel and not checking behaviour. Indeed, the tests
> failed quite spectacularly to spot a 5 year old bug in engine selection.
>
> The dubious invalid-flag negative test remains. It will always be
> a catch-22, either the test is neutered before the kernel, or it will
> lag behind the kernel and fail. It doesn't actually tell us if we fluked
> out in failing the execbuf, but by testing all unknown flags it
> functions better at the role it was meant for (that all as of yet unused
> flags are not accepted).
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Arkadiusz Hiler <arkadiusz.hi...@intel.com>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
