Quoting Antonio Argenziano (2019-02-21 17:50:12) > > > On 21/02/19 02:01, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Eek, I assumed the 'banned' subtest only applied to context platforms, > > ti doesn't. The basic test works for all, checking whether a second > ^--- Typo? :). > > context works after the first is banned however only applies to > > platforms with contexts! > > > > Yeah, I missed that. > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > tests/i915/gem_eio.c | 12 ++++++------ > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_eio.c b/tests/i915/gem_eio.c > > index c5fd07585..3f941071d 100644 > > --- a/tests/i915/gem_eio.c > > +++ b/tests/i915/gem_eio.c > > @@ -334,13 +334,13 @@ static void __test_banned(int fd) > > > > /* Only this context, not the file, should be banned */ > > igt_assert_neq(__gem_context_create(fd, &ctx), -EIO); > > - igt_assert_neq(ctx, 0); > > Although this assert seems to suggest it didn't apply to context-less > platforms as it would fail here. We pass the first with -ENODEV, and fail the second, so yup. > I think it still makes sense to test you get banned on context 0 so, Aye, we still want to ban individual fd using default context. Hmm, we should also go around the loop again to verify that the second context is also banned. Tomorrow! -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
