Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-01-17 12:33:16) > > On 17/01/2018 11:49, Chris Wilson wrote: > > As we allow more buffers to be allocated to fill larger apertures, we > > may exceed the static allocation of 4096 buffers. > > > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=104669 > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > tests/gem_tiled_fence_blits.c | 13 ++++++++++--- > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tests/gem_tiled_fence_blits.c b/tests/gem_tiled_fence_blits.c > > index 51f672fd9..693e96cec 100644 > > --- a/tests/gem_tiled_fence_blits.c > > +++ b/tests/gem_tiled_fence_blits.c > > @@ -98,16 +98,20 @@ check_bo(int fd, drm_intel_bo *bo, uint32_t start_val) > > } > > } > > > > -static void run_test (int fd, int count) > > +static void run_test(int fd, int count) > > { > > - drm_intel_bo *bo[4096]; > > - uint32_t bo_start_val[4096]; > > + drm_intel_bo **bo; > > + uint32_t *bo_start_val; > > uint32_t start = 0; > > int i; > > > > count |= 1; > > igt_info("Using %d 1MiB buffers\n", count); > > > > + bo = malloc(count * sizeof(*bo)); > > + bo_start_val = malloc(count * sizeof(*bo_start_val)); > > I was recently reminded of calloc but it is still OK. I thought both arrays were set to initial non-zero values in the following loop. I started with calloc, realized the memset was overkill and we don't have malloc_array. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
