On 04/12/2017 01:12 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: > 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... > Yes, this should be good for Ion testing. Ion doesn't implement vmap ops right now so that's moot... > 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 > ...but in the interest of general testing I think getting some sort of unit test would be good. I don't have anything in kernel yet for Ion so maybe some generic dma_buf test would be useful. I'll see what I come up with. Thanks, Laura _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
