On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 03:37:23PM -0700, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> Tests for the new flag were added in 3685dabb0ab25eb1.
>
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tests/gem_exec_params.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/gem_exec_params.c b/tests/gem_exec_params.c
> index ba6d67c..5b72072 100644
> --- a/tests/gem_exec_params.c
> +++ b/tests/gem_exec_params.c
> @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@
> #define LOCAL_I915_EXEC_FENCE_IN (1 << 16)
> #define LOCAL_I915_EXEC_FENCE_OUT (1 << 17)
> #define LOCAL_I915_EXEC_BATCH_FIRST (1 << 18)
> +#define LOCAL_I915_EXEC_FENCE_ARRAY (1 << 19)
>
> static bool has_ring(int fd, unsigned ring_exec_flags)
> {
> @@ -357,7 +358,7 @@ igt_main
> /* NOTE: This test intentionally exercise the next available
> * flag. Don't "fix" this testcase without adding the required
> * tests for the new flag first. */
> - execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_RENDER | (LOCAL_I915_EXEC_BATCH_FIRST << 1);
> + execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_RENDER | (LOCAL_I915_EXEC_FENCE_ARRAY << 1);
> RUN_FAIL(EINVAL);
> }
>
> --
> 2.5.0.400.gff86faf
>
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
