On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:12:08PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 01:58:30PM -0800, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote: > > From: Brad Volkin <bradley.d.vol...@intel.com> > > > > This is a speculative test in that it's not particularly relevant > > today, but is important if we switch the parser implementation to > > use kmap_atomic instead of vmap. > > Do you not want to iterate over all (or some combination of) > valid/invalid commands to better fuzz the handling of boundaries?
I think we can look into that once we decide that kmap_atomic is indeed the right way forward. This here seems good enough to at least have the basics ready for a quick test. Pulled in all six patches into igt, I think adding some of the additional cases Chris suggested for invalid handling might be useful. Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
