On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 11:30:00PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:52:52AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 05:53:17PM +0300, David Weinehall wrote: > > > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 01:32:10PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > A simple functional test here which does: > > > > a) an execbuf with just 1 batch. With full ppgtt you should get that one > > > > at offset 0. If not, skip the testcase. > > > > b) set the NO_ZEROMAP property. > > > > c) re-run the same batch, assert that now the buffer is relocated to > > > > something non-0. > > > > > > > > Just to make sure we have a bare minimal testcase to make sure we don't > > > > break this. > > > > > > Maybe this should be added to another test rather than here? This test > > > is described as a: > > > > > > "Basic test for context set/get param input validation." > > > > > > Somehow I feel that testing whether the *functionality* is correct > > > does not belong in this test, but rather in some test case that's > > > already related to execbufs, or even a dedicated test case. > > > > > > But that might be over-engineering. Opinions? > > > > Yeah separate testcase would fit better, agreed. > > Update version of this patch is still missing. I'll need to revert the > kernel side if this one doesn't show up soonish. > > Also you're breaking the invalid-flags testcase (did you bother to run > them all and check for regressions?) which Jesse spotted, and with the new > basic set this will be a P1 "I'm going to block everything" bug.
Forgot to add Jesse. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
