On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 15:53 +0300, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 11:33:00PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > This reverts commit 0b45b0746f45deea11670a8b2c949776bbbef55c.
> >
> > The point of testing for LAST_FLAG + 1 is to catch abi extensions -
> > despite our best efforts we really suck at properly reviewing for test
> > coverage when extending ABI.
> >
> > The real bug here is that David Weinhall hasn't submitted updated igts
> > for the NO_ZEROMAP feature yet. Imo the right course of action is to
> > revert that feature if the testcase don't show up within a few days.
>
> The reason I never submitted it was probably because of Chris's strong
> opposition to the feature in the first place; I've had the testcase
> laying around on my computer for quite a while.
>
> Anyhow, here's a slightly modified version of that test -- hopefully
> not breaking anything.
>
>
> Signed-off-by: David Weinehall <david.weineh...@linux.intel.com>
>
> diff --git a/lib/ioctl_wrappers.h b/lib/ioctl_wrappers.h
> index bc5d4bd827cf..f4deca6bd79e 100644
> --- a/lib/ioctl_wrappers.h
> +++ b/lib/ioctl_wrappers.h
> @@ -102,6 +102,7 @@ struct local_i915_gem_context_param {
> uint32_t size;
> uint64_t param;
> #define LOCAL_CONTEXT_PARAM_BAN_PERIOD 0x1
> +#define LOCAL_CONTEXT_PARAM_NO_ZEROMAP 0x2
> uint64_t value;
> };
> void gem_context_require_ban_period(int fd);
> diff --git a/tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c b/tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c
> index b44b37cf0538..1e7e8ff40703 100644
> --- a/tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c
> +++ b/tests/gem_ctx_param_basic.c
> @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ igt_main
> ctx = gem_context_create(fd);
> }
>
> - ctx_param.param = LOCAL_CONTEXT_PARAM_BAN_PERIOD;
> + ctx_param.param = LOCAL_CONTEXT_PARAM_BAN_PERIOD;
>
> igt_subtest("basic") {
> ctx_param.context = ctx;
> @@ -98,21 +98,31 @@ igt_main
[...]
> - ctx_param.param = LOCAL_CONTEXT_PARAM_BAN_PERIOD;
> + ctx_param.param = LOCAL_CONTEXT_PARAM_NO_ZEROMAP;
>
> - igt_subtest("non-root-set") {
> + igt_subtest("non-root-set-no-zeromap") {
> igt_fork(child, 1) {
> igt_drop_root();
ctx_param.context = ctx;
TEST_FAIL(LOCAL_IOCTL_I915_GEM_CONTEXT_SETPARAM, EINVAL);
TEST_SUCCESS(LOCAL_IOCTL_I915_GEM_CONTEXT_GETPARAM);
ctx_param.value--;
TEST_SUCCESS(LOCAL_IOCTL_I915_GEM_CONTEXT_SETPARAM);
(I've added the code missing from the context)
The code in i915_gem_context_setparam_ioctl() that handles
CONTEXT_PARAM_NO_ZEROMAP never returns
EPERM, so this test always fails.
Cheers,
Ander
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
