Quoting Chris Wilson (2018-05-04 17:33:57) > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-05-04 17:25:27) > > > > On 04/05/2018 13:42, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > Ignore the tests looking at the innards of execlists and its submission > > > tasklets on machines that don't support execlists! > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/intel_lrc.c | 4 ++++ > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/intel_lrc.c > > > index ee7e22d18ff8..b7460b5dd4f7 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/intel_lrc.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/intel_lrc.c > > > @@ -505,5 +505,9 @@ int intel_execlists_live_selftests(struct drm_i915_private *i915) > > > SUBTEST(live_preempt), > > > SUBTEST(live_late_preempt), > > > }; > > > + > > > + if (!HAS_EXECLISTS(i915)) > > > + return 0; > > > + > > > return i915_subtests(tests, i915); > > > } > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Is it a mystery why it wasn't discovered when tests were added? > > No, they do feature tests more precise than HAS_EXECLISTS, namely > preemption. Just later on I'm planing some other tests that want > the general guard, hence nipping it in the bud before you ask for it to > be split out of the larger patch. And pushed, thanks for the review. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
