On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 04:34:13PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 04:29:01PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 04:58:19PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > This testcase tries to validate -EIO behaviour by disabling gpu reset
> > > support in the kernel.
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 09:36:14AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 04:34:13PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 04:29:01PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 04:58:19PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > This testcase tries to
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 10:03:01AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 09:36:14AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 04:34:13PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 04:29:01PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 04:29:01PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 04:58:19PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > This testcase tries to validate -EIO behaviour by disabling gpu reset
> > support in the kernel. Except that the wait subtest forgot to do that,
> > and therefore gets
This testcase tries to validate -EIO behaviour by disabling gpu reset
support in the kernel. Except that the wait subtest forgot to do that,
and therefore gets a return value of 0 instead of the expected -EIO.
With this fix gem_eio passes on a kernel with my fixes completely.
Cc: Chris Wilson
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 04:58:19PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> This testcase tries to validate -EIO behaviour by disabling gpu reset
> support in the kernel. Except that the wait subtest forgot to do that,
> and therefore gets a return value of 0 instead of the expected -EIO.
>
Wrong. It was
