On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 12:57:00PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote: > On 04/12/2017 12:38 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 11:29:18AM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote: > >> Both the read/write are missing the dma_buf_begin_cpu_access calls. > >> When I add those these seem to work well enough for a simple > >> test. I can add a real Tested-by for the next version. > > > > Correct, that was intentional to leave synchronisation to be managed by > > the caller. It is easier to add synchronisation than take it away. > > -Chris > > > > Ah yes, that makes sense. This is what the sync ioctls were for in > the first place :). You can add > > Tested-by: Laura Abbott <labbott@xxxxxxxxxx> Back to the main point of the exercise, does this fulfil the needs for ion/dmabuf testing? We have mmap and now kmap coverage, just by using dmabuf fops - but I can't see a reasonable avenue to do vmap testing. And you will still want vgem for import testing. Again, I can't see a good excuse for vmap... Do you have a set of kselftests in conjunction to userspace testing? Would it be worth making a common mock_dmabuf.ko and/or a dmabuf kselftest framework for producers/consumers to plug into their own kselftests? Please stop me if I'm overengineering! -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
