On Tue, 2017-09-26 at 10:32 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > Michal wants to limit machines that can do preemption, which means that > we no longer can assume that if we have a scheduler for execbuf, that > implies we have preemption. > > v2: Try a capability mask instead > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > tests/gem_exec_schedule.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tests/gem_exec_schedule.c b/tests/gem_exec_schedule.c > index 0b1925f1..85c69703 100644 > --- a/tests/gem_exec_schedule.c > +++ b/tests/gem_exec_schedule.c > @@ -33,6 +33,8 @@ > #include "igt_sysfs.h" > > #define LOCAL_PARAM_HAS_SCHEDULER 41 > +#define HAS_SCHEDULER (1u << 0) > +#define HAS_PREEMPTION (1u << 2) How about some BIT()? I think wehave it in IGT, at least I wrote patches for it. Looks good to me, can you reference the latest Mesa patches in here and the kernel counterpart (reference the kernel counterpart here too). Regards, Joonas -- Joonas Lahtinen Open Source Technology Center Intel Corporation _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
