That's a fair point. With my IGT patch I don't think we would have coverage of the old path any more. I'll try to fix that somehow, and I think your suggestion of including some "invalid" cases is also a good one. Anyway, apart from that I've posted a v2 of the kernel patch addressing your feedback from earlier. I've also rebased it on top of drm-misc-next. On 7/20/23 23:59, Simon Ser wrote: > I had a look at the IGT and I'm not sure about the approach. It seems > like the patch replaces occurrences of the old FLAGS_IMPORT_SYNC_FILE > and FLAGS_EXPORT_SYNC_FILE plus TRANSFER with the new IOCTLs. However > we still want to test the functionality of that old codepath: we need > to continue to test that the old IOCTLs work as expected. > > Are the old IOCTLs still sufficiently tested elsewhere? If not, we need > to either duplicate the tests, either add a flag to the test function > to select between old and new. > > Also, it would be good to have some basic tests for invalid cases, e.g. > for the invalid zero syncobj handle, for timeline points which haven't > materialized yet, etc. > > I wonder if we need to detect at runtime whether the IOCTL is available. > I'm not sure what the IGT requirements are, is it supposed to run on > any Linux version, or does it require drm-next? > > It would help to post the IGT patches on the mailing list so that we > can do a proper review there.
